EXPOSED - The National Black Police Officers Association

For a while now the BNP have been seeking to expose the blatant hypocrisy and double standard that allows the Equality Commission to regard the BNP as 'racist' but which allows the National Black Police Officers Association to operate with utter impunity in our society, without censure or restriction.

This what the NBPA says on its website ;

http://www.nbpa.co.uk/

Welcome to the National Black Police Association

The NBPA is open to all in policing on application, there is no bar to membership based on colour.

The definition of "Black" does not refer to skin colour.

The emphasis is on the common experience and determination of the people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin to oppose the effects of racism.


Yet also its says on the website ;

Our vision:

“The NBPA will work in the interests of the UK police services and be an integral partner to ensure equitable service for all & for the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) staff who we represent.

We will also advocate the needs & expectations of BME communities by delivering and supporting strategies & initiatives which have a positive impact on all”


Do you see the logical disconnect here - on the website it says it does not discriminate against on the grounds of race, as its membership is not based on race, but then it states on the same page that it works for BME staff.

So we need to analyse how someone who is white can join the NBPA, if it is as its says it is, non-racist.

This is because under Section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1976 any organisation with more than 25 members cannot discriminate in its membership on the grounds of race.

So if a White South African wishes to join the NBPA, as they say he can, then all he has to do is self classify himself as Black according to the criteria used by the NBPA.

The problem is though that the NBPA does not work for the people it says it is set up to serve, its members who are defined not in the terms of their race, but for the BME community and staff - WHO ARE DEFINED BY THEIR RACE.

Therefore this is an illegal organisation under section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1976.

The problem is though that the NBPS is protected by the usual suspects as details of their forthcoming conference speakers will reveal ;

Doreen Lawrence OBE – Chair of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust
Linda Johnson – President, National Black Police Association
Chief Constable Steve Otter - Head ACPO Race & Diversity
Denise Milani - Director of Diversity & Citizen Focus
Rt Hon Keith Vaz - Parliamentary Select Committee (TBC)
Jack Straw MP - UK Justice Minister (TBC)
Dr Richard Stone(BSC) - Lawrence Inquiry Advisor


The NBPA is further damned by its regional groups membership statements such as here ;

http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/forceassociations/The%20Black%20Police%20Association/item3939.html

Membership Requirements

Full membership Open to all black Police Officers, Civilian Support Staff and Special Constables directly employed by the Gloucestershire Constabulary.


So we see that the NBPA definition escapes the problem of Direct Racial Discrimination, but the fact remains that it is guilty of Indirect Racial Discrimination in that its membership policy INDIRECTLY discriminates against applicants who are white.

This can be proved by the fact that NO members of the NBPA are white.

The concept of Indirect Racial Discrimination relates to those policies, procedures and operations of bodies like the NBPA that operate in a way that seems to be lawful, but in reality the effect of their operations is that racial discrmination occurs but in an insidious and indirect manner.

That Indirect Discrimination exists in relation to such a scenario is legally established ;

http://www.equal4all.org/defaultpage121c0.aspx?pageID=902


Indirect Discrimination

Indirect racial discrimination may fall into one of two categories depending on the racial grounds of discrimination. The first is on grounds of colour or nationality, under the original definition in the Race Relations Act. The second is on grounds of race, ethnic or national origin. This was introduced by the race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003 to comply with the EC Race Directive.

On grounds of colour or nationality

This occurs when an apparently non-discriminatory requirement or condition which applies equally to everyone can only be met by a considerably smaller proportion of people from a particular racial group; and which is to the detriment of a person from that group because he or she cannot meet it; and the requirement or condition cannot be justified on non-racial grounds.

For example, a rule that employees or pupils must not wear headgear could exclude Sikh men and boys who wear a turban, or Jewish men or boys who wear a yarmulka, in accordance with practice within their racial group.

On grounds of race, ethnic or national origin

This occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which, on the face of it, has nothing to do with race and is applied equally to everyone: puts or would put people of the same race or ethnic or national origins at a particular disadvantage when compared with others; and puts a person of that race or ethnic or national origin at that disadvantage; and cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.


The definition of indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origin is in general terms broader than on the grounds of colour or nationality and as a result it may be easier to establish racial discrimination than previously on that ground.


http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/race/what-is-race-discrimination/what-forms-does-racial-discrimination-take/

Aina v Employment Service [2002] DCLD 103D

A Black African employee applied for the post of equal opportunities manager in his organisation. He was assessed as having the skills and ability for the job. However, his application was rejected because, unknown to him, the post was open only to permanent staff at higher grades than his. Monitoring data showed that the organisation had no permanent Black African employees at the grades in question.

The employment tribunal held that there was no justification for the requirement, and that it amounted to indirect discrimination on racial grounds.



On grounds of colour or nationality

This occurs when an apparently non-discriminatory requirement or condition which applies equally to everyone:

can only be met by a considerably smaller proportion of people from a particular racial group

which is to the detriment of a person from that group because he or she cannot meet it

the requirement or condition cannot be justified on non-racial grounds.

For example, a rule that employees or pupils must not wear headgear could exclude
Sikh men and boys who wear a turban, or Jewish men or boys who wear a yarmulke, in accordance with practice within their racial group.



On grounds of race, ethnic or national origin


This occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which, on the face of it, has nothing to do with race and is applied equally to everyone:

puts or would put people of the same race or ethnic or national origins at a particular disadvantage when compared with others

puts a person of that race or ethnic or national origin at that disadvantage
cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The definition of indirect discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnic or national origin is in general terms broader than on the grounds of colour or nationality and as a result it may be easier to establish racial discrimination than previously on that ground.

The facts are that ;

1) There are no white members of the NBPA thereby proving the racist nature of the NBPA, or in the event of their being a tiny minority of the membership being white, that such a tiny white membership reveals the racist nature of the organisation itself in relation to the ability of white applicants to join the NBPA

2) The NBPA works for the benefit solely of the BME community and staff and not its 'white' members who it allows to join and therefore is guilty of Diorect Racial Discrmination in relation to the provision of its good and services

3) No officers or staff of the NBPA are white thereby proving the racist nature of the NBPA and its racist membership policy

4) That white applicants for membership of the NBPA suffer Indirect Racial Discrimination on the grounds of their race as they are less likely to be allowed into membership of the NBPA on the grounds of their race.

These facts reveal that the NBPA is guilty of Indirect Racial Discrimination against whites, and also that it operates in an unlawful Direct Racist Discriminatory manner by representing only BME communities and staff.

The fact that the constitution of the NBPA states that its membership is not based on race, but that in reality it excludes non-whites from membership, disables any defence it may have been able to run under the terms of Justification under the Indirect Racial Discrimination provisions.

Protection under the RRA may have been able to be claimed by the NBPA if its constitution and aims as an organisation was to explicitly represent only black police officers due to some objective and verifiable need in society based on evidence for such a body to represent Black police officers, but its constitution states that its membership should be open to all applicants regardless of race, but that in reality it only allows in black and BME police officers and that in effect it is operating an illegal and racist membership policy.