Well, duh!

[rozk]

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission has written here to the British National Party about ways in which it may be in breach of various legislation.

You will care to note this paragraph:
The Commission is also concerned that the BNP’s elected representatives may not intend to offer or provide services on an equal basis to all their constituents and members of the public irrespective of race or colour. The Commission thinks that this contravenes the Race Relations Act and the Local Authority Model Code of Conduct and that the BNP may have acted illegally and may act illegally in the future.

Well, gosh, who would ever have thought such a thing?

And they got Capone on his income tax...

Comments

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

I can't help thinking this is a mistake. It will be used by the BMP leadership to show that they are being 'oppressed', and may well increase their support in some areas.

If they have broken the law, take them to court, but asking people to confirm in writing that they won't break the law is not something we normally do in this country and I think if it was asked of other groups we would find it disturbing.

Abusing civil liberities to defeat those who would restrict them may be tempting, but its not something I feel comfortable with.

There may be details to this story not included in the published message, so i'll reserve judgement.

[lisaquestions.livejournal.com]

I believe the point is that they're already breaking the law with their recruiting guidelines:

The Commission thinks that the BNP’s constitution and membership criteria may discriminate on the grounds of race and colour, contrary to the Race Relations Act. The party’s membership criteria appear to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regards as particular “ethnic groups” and those whose skin colour is white. This exclusion is contrary to the Race Relations Act which the party is legally obliged to comply with. The Commission therefore thinks that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally.

The Commission has required the BNP to provide a written undertaking that it will not discriminate contrary to the Race Relations Act in its employment and recruitment policies, procedures and practices.

The BNP’s website states that the party is looking to recruit people and states that any applicants should supply a membership number. The Commission thinks that this requirement is contrary to the Race Relations Act, which outlaws the refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation. The Commission is therefore concerned that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally.

The letter asks the BNP to provide a written undertaking that it will amend its policy on recruitment accordingly so that it complies with the Race Relations Act.

This isn't a "please don't do something bad in the indeterminate future," it's "stop doing something bad right now.

I'm not understanding how asking them to stop breaking the law is an abuse of civil liberties?

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

Then take them to court. Its as simple as that. I'd be in full support of that.

Asking someone to stop breaking the law is certainly not an abuse of civil liberties. But 'requiring' someone to give a written undertaking not to break the law, may well be one.

Its something I would find disturbing if tried with another group and, as much as it pains me, I feel it is necessary to apply the same standards to these guys.

[lisaquestions.livejournal.com]

A written undertaking to stop breaking the law that they're currently breaking. This isn't about the BNP pledging to not break the law in some future time, but about how they're breaking the law right now, and how EHRC wants them to stop breaking the law right now. The action taken is not oppressive to BNP. It's not harming them, in the strictest sense, and they've already stated they're not going to comply.

Per that article, they have a deadline after which EHRC will decide what further action to take, which will probably include direct legal action. BNP can and will play the victim in this no matter what. This isn't because they're being oppressed. Their position is that they're oppressed already - that they're second-class citizens. BNP's entire political mission is based around painting white English people as victims. That's one way racist organizations function.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

"A written undertaking to stop breaking the law that they're currently breaking".

I'm afraid I still want a court a decide if a law is being broken, not a government appointed body. And that applies to people whose views I share and those I view as dangerous, racist, morons.

Even the Race Relations boards statement says that the THINK the consitiution of the BNP is illegal. That they MAY discriminate on the grounds of race and that they MAY have been acting illegaly.

I quite understand that the BNP's mission is to appear oppressed. Why make it easier by treating them differently to anyone else?

Just take them court...

[lisaquestions.livejournal.com]

Even the Race Relations boards statement says that the THINK the consitiution of the BNP is illegal. That they MAY discriminate on the grounds of race and that they MAY have been acting illegaly.

If they don't change their policies by July 20th, EHRC will probably take them to court, and then a court of law can make that decision.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

The EHRC have the power to conduct an investigation or official enquiry if they believe an equalities or human rights law is being broken. Part of this investigation process can be to serve notice to an individual or organisation requiring them to demonstrate that they are not breaking the law, and if they are not able to do so, to take them to court. That is the process that has been initiated here - it's nothing out of the ordinary, as a quick nosy around their site makes clear.

This is actually treating the BNP rather more nicely than making an outright accusation and taking them directly to court, not more harshly as you seem to believe, as it gives them the opportunity to put their house in order.

[paulathomas.livejournal.com]

That the BNP was a whites only party was a real big surprise to me too!!!!!

It is unfortunate that Race Relations law does not seem provide a straight to court option in this kind of case.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I should think the question of whom they allow in their party is quite different from the question of providing fair constituency service. Even the major parties have quite arbitrary rules about membership qualifications: one thinks of the rules adopted by the Labour Party to prevent Communist infiltration.

As for constituency service, shall we wait and see what they do first, rather than provide pre-emptive warnings based on their election rhetoric? Elected politicians have been known to be richly abusive to their opponents (cf "lower than vermin") without being issued warnings about providing fair service to their constituents of opposing political views.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

'Opposing political views' are not an equality strand under UK law - and that's a good thing, in my view. It's not unfair discrimination to disagree, even in strong terms, with someone's political opinions.

[redbird]

It's not just who they allow in their party--it's who they allow to apply for jobs as file clerks or cooks. And requiring membership in an organisation as a condition of general employment is against UK law.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

"And they got Capone on his income tax..."

And he died in prison of the dreaded French pox!

One can only hope...............

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Oh, PLEASE let there be a few brave minority members with the guts to apply for jobs with them...

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

It's not necessary - the EHRC have the power bring charges without there being a specific 'wronged party'. Obviously if someone can demonstrate that they've been actively discriminated against it makes it easier to win the case, but in the case of the BNP I don't think it's going to be difficult to prove.

[geekyisgood.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in whether the BNP's claim that they can discriminate because they are protecting a persecuted group (indigenous Brits) will wash.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

I would be highly amused to know how they define 'indigenous Brit' Fwiw I'm of English white working class, council estate origin, but possessed of Italian, Breton, Scottish, Roma and Latvian Jewish blood...... a real mongrel, like most Brits and I don't feel particularly persecuted, except by the likes of the BNP :o)

Griffin needs to go away and read some British history (but then, as a historian myself, I would say that :o)

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

It won't - that's not how equality legislation works. Intention has nothing to do with it.

I suppose for some posts they could get exempted - for example if they were appointing a caseworker for a project on white social exclusion. But they wouldn't be able to claim the same for a normal clerical role.