Just to clarify a few points.
Most members who arent 'Posture Nationalists' live in the real world.
They are pragmatic nationalists who will not leave the party as a result of this case, in fact most decent members are repulsed by the nazi saluters and golliwog burners who follow the 'Posture Nationalist' line and who will try and use this case as an excuse to incite trouble in the party.
There is nothing more sickening than listening to the bone idle, do nothing, gobshites on some internet forums talking about what BNP activists should do when they do nothing but talk rubbish from behind a keyboard.
It is a political truism that the mouthiest keyboard warriors are usually the least active nationalists.
Therefore those armchair nationalist and keyboard warriors who pontificate about defending 'activists' or the BNP are usually hollow and hypocritical platitudes from bone idle scumbags who spend all their time mouthing off on the internet attacking real nationalists and do nothing else.
The idea that new labour have initiated this case in order to turn us into a civic nationalist party is simply a sign of insanity. If the BNP were truly a civic nationalist party then we would probably have about 'fifty MEP's by now. The fact is that if we wanted to abandon our policies on protecting indigenous rights and british culture and become a civic nationalist party that would ensure we become a massive mainstream party overnight - only deluded idiots think that a racial nationalist party = electoral success.
I think the fact that the NF are a political joke with no council seats proves that point is baseless and idiotic. If the public wanted to vote for a racial nationalist party the NF would have the MEP's, not us.
Only the extremists see value in extremist policies - the public reject extremism.
The plan by the equality commission is to cause internal problems by inciting the more extremist elements in the party, who dont give a damn about how succesful we are as a political party as long as we remain a purist 'racist' party, or whether we are banned as a political party, to kick up a fuss.
That makes the extremists morons who say the BNP should surrender and go out in a 'blaze of glory' a tool of the labour government, for they are so dim they cannot even see they are doing the governments work for them.
When individuals join the party they are are not required to give away their rights, their civil rights remain with them at all times.
What we can say is that if you choose to exert those rights against the party then you voluntarily self remove yourself from the party.
You can still exert those rights if you wish, but to do so means you will be kicked out of the party.
An association is able to define its membership in any way it wants as long as it doesnt infringe the rights and freedoms of others as defined in law eg we cannot bar membership on the grounds or race or skin colour which are expressly banned and prohibited under the race relations acts and under Article 11 of the ECHR.
In other words we can impose a membership condition that allows us to expel on the grounds listed, but we do not have the power to say those people do not have those rights and nor could we.
THIS IS SIMPLY BECAUSE EVEN IF WANTED TO REMOVE THEIR RIGHTS WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REMOVE THEIR RIGHTS.
Their rights remain with them at all times, but if they choose to use those rights to attack another member or the party, then if they choose to use those rights that will give us legitmate grounds to remove them from the party.
The provision ON ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP STATUS would apply to all associate members equally regardless of race, therefore is neither discrminatory directly or indirectly EITHER IN FUNCTION OR APPLICATION.
As ALL Associate Members are barred from attending meetings, then neither can direct or indirect racial discrimination be claimed or proved. ( Re Redfearn V Serco )
As for the requirement to disclose previous political afficliations and memberships -We can ask anyone to disclose anything we want before they become a member, and that they agree to provide us with that information before they join.
IF THEY DONT WANT TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION, THEN THEY ARENT ALLOWED TO JOIN.
Those that spend more time attacking the BNP than doing anything else should just leave the party and join the NF.
Those who are sincere in their wish to fight this case on principle need to do the follwing;
1) Set up a BNP Nationalist Supporters Group as a limited association
2) Raise enough money to hire a lawyer
3) Take the Equality Commission to court in the name of the BNP supporters group and not the BNP as that way costs fall on the supporters group and not the BNP
4) Take on a judicial review case to challenge the authority of the Equality Commission to bring this case and also challenge them on the fact that other organisations are not being targeted by the Equality Commission
5) Seek an order for a Declaration from the court and an order for Certoriari from the court over turning the previous court decision to award them costs and not to allow the BNP to claim legal aid under the issue of Equality of Arms
If you arent prepared to put up, then shut up.
In relation to the NF membership criteria ;
" The National Front is a radical racial nationalist movement made up of a confederation of semi-autonomous branches. The primary object of the National Front is to ensure the survival and advancement of the White Race and the British Nation.
Compliance with the terms of this Constitution shall be a necessary condition of membership of the National Front. "
Two problems ;
1) The Equality Commission uses the internal propaganda of the party under investigation as evidence of its 'white only' racist membership policy, so I wonder if the NF have ever said they are a 'white race' only organisation in their internal propaganda at all ? Hmmm a hard one that.
2) The Equality Commission will send them a formal legal notice giving the NF twenty one days to state whether they racially discriminate in relation to their membership policy and secondly do they have a whites only membership policy which is what they did to the BNP - and if they refuse to answer then they will take them to court to get a 'clarification ' on the position of the NF as regarding those two issues.
Now I wonder if the NF would be willing to say ;
1) We do not racially discriminate in relation to new members and we allow non-whites to join the NF
2) Our party is not a whites only party and our definition of the 'white race' is not based on race or skin colour.
Hmmmm, hard one that.
If they did not respond, did not reply or did not clarify their membership criteria -then they will be banned.
Simple as that.
Problem is that reality doesnt matter to some people does it.
As for the simpleton Ravenser (!) a national front sock puppet on one idiot internet forum who states ;
" None of them have any legal force. If it were otherwise, legislation such as the Minimum Wage would be unenforcable, because unscrupulous employers would simply insist that their workforce agree in advance to 'sign away' their protection. "
Errrr - the laws on employment rights relate to EMPLOYMENT and the legal duties on EMPLOYERS in relation to an employment situation based on an employment contract.
Joining the BNP isnt being employed by the BNP is it dumb ass.
Legislation covers a specific area of law eg employment law - and NO legislation, other than the race relations acts, defines what the constitution of a voluntary membership association has to be. In fact case law on membership associations states quite clearly that voluntary membership associations can impose ANY rules on membership criteria as no-one is forced to join a voluntary association unless a law exists, eg the race relations acts, that places a legal duty on the organisation to abide by that law - and funnily enough this right for voluntary associations to self define their own membership critteria for themselves was confirmed in the ASLEF V Lee case in the ECHR.
Sock puppets backing up sock puppets = sock puppet logic.
If, as the reds keep suggesting, every single non-white person of voting age where to join the BNP the net effect would be an increase in BNP income by £30 for each new member, say £60 million conservatively.
None of these probationary members would be entitled to vote in General Meetings for two years as per the present constitution, or seven years if my proposed plan is adopted, after which period the BNP could simply wind itself up, and re-constitute itself as a new party as the Vlaams Blok did a few years ago.
And we get to keep all the dosh - and then re-constitute the party again and again etc etc