Jump to content
David

General politics discussion thread

Recommended Posts

I thought this would be a good idea for those politically themed topics that didn't quite make the cut for their own thread.

 

The UK's equalities watchdog has begun legal action against the British National Party over concerns about ethnic restrictions on its membership.

 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said limiting membership to those of an "ethnic origin" described as "indigenous Caucasian" was illegal.

 

It has issued proceedings against BNP leader Nick Griffin and two officials.

 

The party called this a "pathetic attempt" by the commission to divert attention from its own problems.

 

But equality minister Harriet Harman said: "No party should be allowed to have an apartheid constitution in 21st Century Britain. I welcome the action."

 

The commission has issued county court proceedings against the BNP after voicing concerns in June.

 

The UK's equalities watchdog has begun legal action against the British National Party over concerns about ethnic restrictions on its membership.

 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said limiting membership to those of an "ethnic origin" described as "indigenous Caucasian" was illegal.

 

It has issued proceedings against BNP leader Nick Griffin and two officials.

 

The party called this a "pathetic attempt" by the commission to divert attention from its own problems.

 

But equality minister Harriet Harman said: "No party should be allowed to have an apartheid constitution in 21st Century Britain. I welcome the action."

 

The commission has issued county court proceedings against the BNP after voicing concerns in June.

 

"The commission has a statutory duty to use our regulatory powers to enforce compliance with the law, so we have today issued county court proceedings against the BNP.

 

"However, the party still has an opportunity to resolve this quickly by giving the undertaking on its membership criteria that the commission requires."

 

The BNP's constitution - last framed in September 2008 - does not explicitly mention the word "white" when talking about restrictions on membership.

 

The term is only used in the section on the party's political objectives: "It is... committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white make-up of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."

 

The BNP's constitution limits membership to a group it describes in this way: "The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of 'Indigenous Caucasian' consists of members of: i) the Anglo-Saxon folk community; ii) the Celtic Scottish folk community; iii) the Scots-Northern Irish folk community; iv) the Celtic Welsh folk community; v) the Celtic Irish folk community; vi) the Celtic Cornish folk community; vii) the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic folk community; viii) the Celtic-Norse folk community; ix) the Anglo-Saxon-Norse folk community; x) the Anglo-Saxon Indigenous European folk community; xi) members of these ethnic groups which reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them."

 

Lee Barnes, legal officer for the BNP, told the BBC: "We think that the commission has brought this action at the behest of the Labour Party.

 

"It is also a galvanising thing to focus the commission's attention away from its own problems and internal issues."

 

Six commissioners have have left the EHCR in recent months and there have been criticisms of the leadership of chairman Trevor Phillips.

 

The communities and local government committee is set to investigate how the watchdog is run later this year and may ask Mr Phillips to give evidence.

 

Mr Barnes said: "It has nothing to do with discrimination; it's all to do with internal politicking."

 

Source: BBC.com

 

I'm guessing that there will be a deluge of non-whites racing to join the BNP if this legal action comes into play.

 

Another time and resource wasting exercise it would seem.

Edited by hardcore_harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hardcore_harry in BNP related thread shocker.

 

I'm surprised Griffin didn't wheel out the "We're not racist because we are only for whites, are the girl guides sexist because they are for girls", he usually does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What hacks me off about this is that they have had plenty of time to take this kind of action against the BNPeaBrains yet only bothered now that the party has started gaining ground in Europe and as the report states at a time when the EHCR is faced with internal problems.

 

If the major parties had the balls to call a serious debate on immigration in the first place (as well as actually kicking out those who failed to claim residence here) instead of cowering at the thought of being called racist by the PC Brigade this whole sorry mess may well have deen avoided.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BNP is not general politics, they are far right extremists who want to divide people, it's just so small minded.

 

I'm off to the Notting Hill Carnival on Sunday for a great time mixing with people of different colours and creeds, there is a whole world of different people out there to meet and make you a richer person for meeting them. F**k the BNP!! I don't want to know, they shouldn't be given a platform to preach their policies of hate and division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I don't agree with their politics, I do think they should be allowed the right to exclude those who don't fit into their political view. We're essentially forcing a far right party to change their views and as repulsive as I find them and their politics, everyone is entitled to their own view and if they want to exclude non-whites then so be it. What ethnic person would want to join the BNP anyway knowing what they stand for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they shouldn't be given a platform to preach their policies of hate and division.

 

Of course they should.

 

No one has to listen mind you, but they have as much right to a platform as any other political party in the country.

 

I'm off to the Notting Hill Carnival on Sunday for a great time mixing with people of different colours and creeds, there is a whole world of different people out there to meet and make you a richer person for meeting them.

 

Have fun.

 

You may want to be careful though. Some of the people you'll come across at the festival are intent on making you poorer, not richer.

 

The chairman of the MET had this to say on the radio a few years back;

 

In my experience, the level of reported crime is far below that which really happens, and the whole process is down-played for political reasons.]

 

Police are actively discouraged from making arrests by senior officers for fear of sparking a riot situation, and I have seen serious criminal offences taking place while we are powerless to act... There is a significant criminal minority who exploit it in the full knowledge that the police will tread extremely lightly... The record of the Carnival is pretty appalling.'

 

Whilst the London Evening standard also said;

 

Organisers of the Notting Hill Carnival have finally agreed to an earlier starting time to avoid a repeat of last year's rioting.

 

Police and councils had threatened to refuse permission for the festival on 30 and 31 August unless strict new measures were introduced to reduce noise and violence.

 

They have insisted that the carnival begins at 9am and the last float is judged at 6.30pm so that the parade will have left the road by nightfall. Last year 50 police were injured in violence, with mobs throwing bricks and bottles while following a late-running float.

 

Organisers will also be forced to turn down the music after noise levels breached 140 decibels last year.

 

So keep an eyeball on your wallet chief :thumbsup:

Edited by hardcore_harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a wasted effort, it's not like we have a constitution and they've declared the BNP unconstitutional.

I love the throwing around of the phrase constitution and people buying into it when we don't actually have a physical constitution. What we do have, however, are a system of laws which people interpret as a constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they have as much right to a platform as any other political party in the country.

 

As much as I loath the BNP I have to agree with this.

 

The obvious double standard when it comes to the BNP is what sickens me, I mean people (rightly) slam them as a facist party yet their solution to them is to try and get them "banned" (and in some cases threats of violence) instead of smacking them down with reasonable debate.

 

Both the extreme right and the extreme left are populated by facist retards.

 

It's just two sides of the same coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debate in the sense of head to head verbal argument with the BNP won't work. They use similar persuasive techniques to the evolution deniers in the States - they just blatantly make shit up. They put some bullshit fact or figure out there, like 99.79% of council houses in the UK are occupied by asylum seekers, and go straight on to some other topic before anyone has a chance to call them on it.

 

In the wider social discussion, the fuckers don't stand a chance. Given time to prove their claims false, anyone of any intelligence could demolish the BNP. Unfortunately, the people who vote BNP aren't very intelligent.

 

By all means, I think that we need strong free speech legislation in this country and that people should be able to hold and express any views that they like. If the practice of those beliefs is to the harm or disadvantage of anyone else, that is grounds for regulation. So specifically, the BNP as a registered political party is not allowed to restrict membership on the grounds of race, just as an employer isn't allowed to racially discriminate in hiring practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By all means, I think that we need strong free speech legislation in this country and that people should be able to hold and express any views that they like. If the practice of those beliefs is to the harm or disadvantage of anyone else, that is grounds for regulation. So specifically, the BNP as a registered political party is not allowed to restrict membership on the grounds of race, just as an employer isn't allowed to racially discriminate in hiring practices.

 

Try telling that to our equality minister;

 

The Equality Minister defended plans to encourage firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.

 

The new Equalities Bill is also expected to force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to make the pay gap between men and women more transparent.

 

Responding to criticism that the plans could discriminate against white men, Ms Harman said "you don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward".

 

Source: Independent.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By all means, I think that we need strong free speech legislation in this country and that people should be able to hold and express any views that they like. If the practice of those beliefs is to the harm or disadvantage of anyone else, that is grounds for regulation. So specifically, the BNP as a registered political party is not allowed to restrict membership on the grounds of race, just as an employer isn't allowed to racially discriminate in hiring practices.

 

An employer is allowed to discriminate in hiring practices. The equal opportunity laws apply to the advertising of roles. If I wanted to headhunt someone to come in and do a specific job (and did so by inviting candidates I was interested in rather than putting out a general advertisement) there is nothing stopping me from deciding that I wasn't going to look at anyone black and there is equally nothing to stop from asking a woman if she intended to have children in those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Cameron has accepted a challenge to take part in a live television debate with Gordon Brown in the build up to the General Election.

 

Mr Cameron accepted after Sky News launched a national campaign inviting the Conservative leader, the Prime Minister and Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats to take part.

 

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, let slip in July that Mr Brown was planning to use his keynote conference speech in September to discuss the idea of live television debates taking place between the party leaders during next year's campaign. If they take place it would be the first time in British political history.

 

Lord Mandelson, effectively Mr Brown's deputy, claimed previously that the prime minister would come off best in a debate with Mr Cameron.

 

"I don't think Gordon would have a problem with that. While Cameron is good with words, he doesn't have the ideas or policies to back them. I think people would see through the smile," he said.

 

"The more the public sees of them, the more they'd realise that Gordon is the man with the substance."

 

At that point Mr Cameron made it known he would take part in the debate, writing to Mr Brown saying it "would help to energise our democratic process, engage the electorate and restore trust in politics.

 

"Your previous objection was that a televised debate was unnecessary as the issues were aired each week in parliament. But Prime Minister's Questions simply cannot compete with the accessibility of a prime time studio debate.

 

"I want the chance to set out the choice at the next election to many more people than those who watch on a Wednesday lunchtime."

 

John Ryley, the head of Sky News, said: "There is a chance here, not just to do something that has never been done, but to energise an electorate, to reconnect with the millions of people who have been alienated by politics and the way it is so often covered, to achieve something that is truly democratic."

 

At the last election, BBC Question Time staged a show in which each of the three main party leaders took part and answered questions from the audience, but they appeared one after another rather than on the stage together.

 

Source: The Telegraph

 

It'll be interesting to see if the other parties are willing to become involved in this.

 

It certainly couldn't do any harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good idea, and it'll be interesting to see how Cameron does. It'll make him or break him I think. Parliament's always a decent watch, seeing how quickly they descend into childish retort, so I wonder if they'll manage to keep level headed on live TV.

 

Though living in London, I'm more used to seeing Boris Johnson talk, and that's always good for a laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a good idea, and it'll be interesting to see how Cameron does. It'll make him or break him I think.

 

It could break him if he says something daft but I don't think there's anyway that it could make him - he's already made, Brown is a disaster and the election is the Tories to lose. If I were a betting man I'd say Cameron has thrown out this challenge under the assumption that Brown would turn it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...