• Nick Griffin contempt of court hearing adjourned.

      3 comments

    The above image is of a group of BNP supporters outside the High Court in London. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights had applied for the committal of Mr Griffin, deputy Simon Darby and party officer Tanya Lumby over allegations that the BNP has failed to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution. At a brief hearing before Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, the case was adjourned as it has to be heard by two judges and therefore had to be transferred to the Divisional Court for a two-day hearing starting on the 8th November. As this was a court error, so the costs of proceedings will be borne by the court – that means you the taxpayer.

    The two sides agreed to a further timetable for the sharing of evidence while the court ruled that Mr Griffin’s motion to strike the case should be heard first. The EHRC only submitted the last of its legal arguments to Mr Griffin on the morning of the hearing thus the later date will allow the BNP time to study the new documentation.

    One of the consequences of the postponement is that the Act under which the court action was brought, will no longer be in force by the time of the next court date, which will pose an interesting legal conundrum for the court.

    Following the hearing, Mr Griffin and his barristers held a without prejudice meeting with the EHRC’s John Wadham and QC Mr Allen at which it was discussed what steps were necessary to bring proceedings to a swift end. These would primarily involve changes to the BNP’s constitution.

    Following the meeting, Mr. Griffin reported, “The EHRC representatives indicated that even if the BNP’s efforts to defeat the current litigation were successful, they would bring a completely new action against the party. Such a court action would be over any provisions in the BNP constitution which seek in any way to make acceptance of a home visit or agreement with our position opposing mass immigration and the dissolution of British identity as contained in sections 3.21 and 3.2.3 of the constitution. This has clearly nothing to do with membership restrictions and is an attempt to move the goalposts once again. My initial reaction, which I will consider more fully before making a final decision, is that this is not an issue upon which it is worth engaging in a renewed bout of litigation. It is clear that a simple amendment to the constitution can slam the door in their faces, and I am most inclined to follow that route instead. It is a good idea to settle the constitutional issue, not least so that it ceases to take up mental energy and financial resources which could be far better expended elsewhere. However, the reality is that the EHRC’s contempt of court proceedings are a totally separate matter. The legal fact is that it cannot be discontinued without a further court hearing despite the fact that the commission may wish that this was not the case. My application to strike their contempt application therefore has to, and will, go ahead.”

    British Gazette comment: The actions of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights are wholly inconsistent with the traditions of British tolerance which this particular quango seeks to suggest it supports. The question as to whether the EHRC is part of the problem or part of the solution is a question for another article or page. However, what is clear is that the energy, time and money the EHRC has devoted to this case shows how concerned the establishment is about the existence of the BNP. Many may ask: Why?

    Of course there will be those supporters and members of the BNP who would spontaneously answer along the lines of: “Because they fear us for we are going to win many seats….” In this these BNP activists will share a common widely optimistic view of their electoral prospects. In this they are not alone, as activists in many small parties view the possibility of electoral success with a confidence that is not borne out be either experience or observation. Perhaps the most famously over optimistic statement in recent political memory was Liberal party leader David Steel’s 1981 call at the Liberal Party conference that year to: “Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for government!”

    So why, as a BNP government is not around the corner is so much energy and effort as well as venom and hatred directed at this small party? Clearly many would make the obvious comment: “That the BNP is an extremist party with repugnant views.” Whether or not the reader opposes or supports the BNP, this statement is correct in the sense that there are literally millions of people who regard the BNP’s as an extremist party with policies they view as repugnant. This however of itself would not be sufficient reason for the establishment to direct so much time and energy into attacking the BNP. The reason why such effort is expended is this: to ensure that the BNP is never regarded as a RESPECTABLE political party. This word respectable is at the heart of the establishment’s policies towards the BNP. The funding of such groups such as Unite Against Fascism is intended to send a message to any voter who many consider supporting or voting for the BNP that supporting this party is NOT socially acceptable. What is or is not “socially acceptable” is a very important factor in influencing human behaviour. We are social creatures and we instinctively eschew actions or behaviour that would ostracise us from other members of society. It is a fundamental part of our psychological makeup. Without this, human society would break down and civilisation would never have got off the ground as it is an essential function that most members of society “police themselves” and do not require the resources of overt policing. There is no doubt that were such groups as Unite Against Fascism not to exist and the media did not put forward an almost universal condemnatory line against the BNP, many more voters would vote for them and the BNP would have more members. This of course explains why there are members of UKIP who – when encouraged – will put forward views that are not unsimilar to those held by BNP members. These people are quite comfortable being members of UKIP as UKIP is held to be a RESPECTABLE party.

    The reason why the establishment spend so much time and effort into seeking to ensure that the BNP remains unacceptable lies in the reaction from many members of the many ethnic minority communities were the BNP ever to achieve RESPECTABILITY and the votes that would come with it. This is because the establishment fear – correctly – that such a development would cause the setting up of many sectarian parties to promote the views and interests of particular communities. This is THE BIG FEAR of the establishment. That parties are set up for Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Afro-Caribbeans, Chinese, Somalis and so on. The British political establishment fears sectarian politics more than anything else. British governments have had to deal with sectarian politics in Ireland for literally centuries. However, British governments are keenly aware of the potential for sectarian politics within the communities that hail from the Asian sub-continent. Ignore for a moment descriptions such as “racist” – the British political establishment’s problem with the BNP is that it is a SECTARIAN political party. By its own admission, it is set up to represent the interests and views of what it calls the indigenous British community. Clearly, any party set up with this intention will inevitably cause members of other communities to think in terms of setting up parties to represent their views and interests.

    So, how did the country get into this mess? There are those conspiracy theorists who would suggest that it is all part of a plan to eliminate British identity. This is nonsense. The fact of the matter is this: there was no “Big Plan.” In fact there was no “big plan” to establish a British Empire, which at its height ruled a quarter of the surface area of the earth. That one short term decision and its consequences led to another explains the predicament the country is now in. At the beginning of the twentieth century the U.K. found itself with the largest empire in world history. It was the most powerful nation state on earth. Inevitably this caused other nations to seek to rival us. Chief amongst these was Germany. Unlike Britons, Germans “had a plan.” Pursuing this plan led to the horrors of World War One. With the inevitability of Greek tragedy, World War One led to World War Two twenty years later. In 1945 the U.K. was effectively bankrupt and forced to accept the position of client state of the U.S.A. who had been the principal beneficiary of the European nations warring against themselves.

    In the 1940s and the 1950s British capitalists required cheap labour to help maintain the competiveness of British industry. Cheap labour was brought from the West Indies and later the Asian sub-continent. No thought or planning was given by these capitalists of the long term economic, social and demographic consequences of their actions. Their ONLY concern was that year’s set of accounts and the return their shareholders expected. Objections by what the BNP calls “the indigenous community” was quickly and universally condemned. That British capitalists were allowed to get away with importing huge numbers of persons from the Asian sub continent so shortly after the bloody wars of partition following the independence of India and Pakistan – which surely should have served as a warning – can be put down to the fact that there was a Conservative government in power throughout this period and the fact that “he who pays the piper calls the tune.”

    When it looks ahead, the British political establishment sees a nightmare scenario: the U.K. has many diverse communities. Most have NOT integrated and maintain their own identity, traditions, culture and language. Furthermore the mores of some of these communities are developing in the opposite direction to others – principally the majority (indigenous in BNP speak) community. This, and the demographic trends which will see an exponential increase in the numbers of “ethnic minority” communities and a decline in the “indigenous” community cause the political establishment to fear for the future. With very good reason. Their solution? An attempt to “keep the lid on it.” This is achieved not only by vigorously opposing and demonising such as the BNP but also seeking to tackle all forms of discrimination that could cause the “ethnic minorities” to be unhappy with their lot. This explains why past British governments have been so wayward in seeking to encourage members of the “ethnic minority” communities to learn English, integrate and adopt British ways. This passive attitude and the resulting “diversity” is one of the principal reasons why this country is seen as such an attractive place for so many of the world’s poor. For those readers who doubt this put yourself in this hypothetical position:
    - You are in desperate poverty. You have considered your position and consider that your best hope of a future is to emigrate and to leave the land of your birth. Would you prefer to emigrate to a country were there already many members of your nationality/ethnic/linguistic group or not? Furthermore the country you have in mind has communities that have maintained their separate identities and community cohesion? Of course you would wish to settle in such a country. The old proverb, “Birds of a feather flock together.” is very true. One needs only look towards British expat communities in Spain to see that this applies to “indigenous” Britons just as much as it does to such as Somalis.

    • Peter, you have put the argument for where we are so very eloquently. To continue the article, however,what would the gazette suggest as the way out of this mess?

    • Your article was reposted on the London Patriot website and on many facebook pages. Very insightful and well researched. Thank you.

    • You make a lot of grand assertions in your opinion piece, reinforced by generous use of capital letters, but you don’t provide a lot of evidence to back it up. Smacks of agitprop rather than dispassionate analysis to me.

    Write a comment