UK: Jumping on the “Ban” Wagon

Latest CEHR police threat “a political ploy”

by BNP News

The latest Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) threat to start legal at the European and local elections, said deputy press officer, John Walker.

Speaking to BNP News in reaction to the announcement today that the CEHR wishes to issue county court proceedings against the party over “ethnic restrictions of its membership” Mr Walker pointed out that the BNP has had these rules since its founding in 1982.

“One has to question what the CEHR’s motivation is in bringing this action now,” he said. “We wonder what has suddenly changed. It is obvious that this is a politically motivated ploy caused by our successes at the polls in June this year, and nothing else.“In the official response, it was pointed out that the BNP is “exempt from the provisions of section 25 of the Race Relations Act by virtue of the provisions of section 26 of that act. The British National Party is an ethnic specific association, and it does not cease to be so because we choose to denote our ethnic group in a way which is unique to ourselves.”

The CEHR letter discloses “no ground” on which it could successfully claim that the BNP has committed an “unlawful act,” the response said, adding that the CEHR just “ignored” the party’s section 26 status.

The response, signed by party chairman Nick Griffin, also discussed the CEHR’s objection to the use of the word ‘white’.

“I note, however, that you raise concerns over the use of the word ‘white’ utilised on the British National Party’s FAQ page of its website. As you should be aware when the use of a word which refers to a skin colour is used to refer to an ethnic group, the use of that colour word does not turn that ethnic group into a skin colour group. That this is so is easily evidenced.

“First, this can be evidenced by the considerable number of charities for the benefit of black people or indirectly for such persons by the inclusion of a reference to black people in a charity’s name. As you know, section 34 of the RR Act expressly prohibits the creation of charities for the benefit of skin colour racial groups and yet a considerable number of such black charities appear to exist.

“However, upon closer inspection, none of the charities in question are for a skin colour racial group. All are either silent on the actual intended beneficiaries of the charity as in the case of the black people-named charities, or they expressly provide in their objects clause that black does not mean persons of black skin colour but, more often than not, means persons of African or African Caribbean descent, origin or ethnicity.

“CEHR and its predecessors have been aware for some time of these apparently black only skin colour charities and, as far as I am aware, have raised no objections to a single one of them. Some of these charities have annual incomes and influence that dwarf that of the British National Party, so clearly size, prominence and power have not previously been factors for determining when CEHR (or CRE) would exercise an interest in the legality of an ethnic specific organisation, until in the case of myself and the British National Party.

“As a final comment on this point, I should add that there are 12,000 plus charities which are officially one way or another specific to persons of, in effect, a minority. None exist for those whose racial origin is British or are of its sub group, the English.”