Wednesday, 8 September 2010

CEHR v BNP: Round 2

The EHRC case against the BNP was adjourned yesterday and has been prostponed until 8 November due to a legal blunder by the court. The court has also agreed to bear the legal costs of both parties. Nick Griffin has applied to have the case struck off.

What a complete farce. This second legal action from the EHRC was extremely weak when I looked at it. This is why they had to bring a civil (as opposed to a criminal) action for contempt of court, even though Nick did what they asked in a manner and timetable that was both unavoidable and reasonable. What is the point of bringing this second action, what do they possibly hope to achieve by sending the BNP leadership to prison for 3 months? The party will continue as normal regardless.

The first legal action should never have occurred in the first place, simply because the BNP surely has the legal and fundamental right to exist to exclusively represent the interests of the indigenous population of Britain. This right is enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights (Articles 2, 20 and 21). The rights of indigenous people, specifically, was reaffirmed again in UN General Assembly Resolution 61/295 in 2007. The BNP's constitution has never attempted to intentionally discriminate against people on the grounds of their skin colour. Indigenous people happen to be white, which is an obvious unavoidable fact. The party was established to represent the indigenous people and their interests and the motivation is purely political and not discriminatory or prejudicial. Ethnic minorities and non-indigenous peoples are also free to form their own political associations and parties. Would the EHRC then consider them discriminatory towards white indigenous people?

It's obviously ethnic discrimination concerns from the BNP's constitution and membership criteria are not the EHRC's primary motivation in bringing these legal actions. Their motivation is political and their intention is to inflict collateral damage on the BNP, being the only real opposition to mass immigration and mainstream politics. If this was not the case, and their motivation was genuine concerns over discrimination, why wait 20 odd years to bring a legal action when the laws against discrimination have been around all this time? Could it be the BNP's organisational growth, financial and political, and the fact the BNP now has two MEP's, which has them more concerned?

No comments:

Post a Comment