Wednesday, 8 September 2010

CEHR v BNP: Round 2 (update)

Nick Griffin speaking to John Walker at the BNP's Radio RWB, discussed earlier today the outcome of the court hearing yesterday and where the BNP goes from here in it's ongoing battle with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR).

After the trial was adjourned and prostponed yesterday until 8 November, Nick Griffin took the opportunity to request a meeting with the CEHR and their barristers at the court, to sort out exactly what their complaint is concerning the BNP's revised

The CEHR never fully explained their original complaint and what exactly they expected the BNP to do originally, and subsequently, in order to be compliant with the law and the court ruling. Despite several requests from Nick Griffin in writing for a meeting or dialogue, all of which were ignored by the CEHR.

The BNP made every effort from the very start to avoid costly litigation and tried to settle this dispute with the CEHR (then known as the EHRC) through co-operation and dialogue. However it was clear they did not want any dialogue with the BNP and wanted to pursue the court action, no doubt motivated by the intention to inflict damage on the BNP.

This is an important point here, because Nick Griffin has come under a lot criticism for not settling the complaint about of court, and he has been accussed of causing the party large and unnecessary legal costs. In fairness to Griffin, it would seem he did make some effort to avoid this.

Now that Nick Griffin as Chairman of the BNP has been granted executive powers to amend the constitution at any time by the members, he is planning to use those powers to quote "slam the door shut" on the CEHR and stop any further litigation. The CEHR have until now, disputed the fact the Chairman has this power, which is why they brought litigation rather than entered into dialogue with the Chairman, they claim. They now concede that he does in fact have the power to amend the constitution and negotiate with them on any issue without the need for further litigation.

Accordingly, the BNP plans to get rid of the whole constitutional issue alltogether before November 8th by going even further with they have already and meeting all the fresh demands set out by the CEHR at the meeting yesterday. This should then render the complaint of “contempt of court” by the CEHR completely empty and without a shred of evidence.

The CEHR indicated at the meeting to Nick Griffin that they were fully intending to bring new litigation after the contempt of court hearing, so it is wise and prudent of the Chairman to close this vulnerability of the BNP properly, once and for all.

The CEHR have also attempted to embarrass and expose the BNP by dictating that the BNP must make a statement which has to appear prominently on it's website indicating that the consitution has been amended due to a court judgement (which also must be shown) so that it no longer discriminates on the grounds of ethnicity or political beliefs, and that anyone is able to join. Nick Griffin has said he's happy to do this and claims rather than embarassing the BNP, it's seen as an advantage for the BNP, since ethnic minority patriots who felt they were excluded from the BNP will be more inclined to join.

One remaining major bone of contention still between the CEHR and the BNP is the fact the CEHR thinks that BNP's requirement in the consitution for members to be opposed to mass immigration, and supportive of repatriation for non-indigenous people, is unlawful and discriminatory. It's an outrage, that a government quango can basically dictate to a political party what it's members can or cannot believe, and what policies are acceptable or unacceptable. The constitution and any changes to it, are afterall
democratically approved by majority member vote. Anyone who fundamentally doesn't agree with the constitution or the policies of the BNP, obviously wouldn't be joining the BNP in the first place!

The CEHR also has complained that the change to constitution requiring new members to be visited in their home before they're allowed to attend meetings or vote is also discriminatory. This is completely bizarre because this rule applies to all new and existing members of the party who have less than 2 years membership, regardless of ethnicity or skin colour.

It also perfectly reasonable for the BNP to make this provision to protect the party and it's members against threats it has received in the past from BNP opposition groups concerning a mass trojan membership.

The BNP intends to defend and assert it's rights on these issues which Nick Griffin claims is necessary and unavoidable. Nick Griffin also plans to bring a counter-legal challenge to the CEHR claiming they should be responsible for the substantial legal costs in bringing the “contempt of court” action, because the BNP wasn't given any information or time to provide a proper defence, and neither was the CEHR willing to cooperate. Nick has stated that he believes this is contrary to English law and the right to a fair hearing which will form the basis of the BNP's action on the CEHR.

Unfortunately this litigation is going to cost more money and is not without considerable risk, since if the BNP loses it will be responsible for the CEHR's defence costs.

No comments:

Post a Comment