The British State vs. The BNP—The Post-Modern Tyranny of “Human Rights”


[Peter
Brimelow
writes: The U.S. may shortly have

“Hate Crime” legislation
, which will of course
immediately


metastasize into an attack on
“hate speech”
.
Wanna bet that what is happening in the U.K., described
below by a distinguished British libertarian, can`t
happen here?)



Also by Sean Gabb:


England: The Peasants are
Revolting

On
Monday, August 24th 2009, the British
Equality
and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC) began legal
proceedings against the
British National Party
(BNP). Its cause of action is
that the BNP restricts membership to white people—
"indigenous
British ethnic groups deriving from the class of
`Indigenous Caucasian`"

plus "
those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or
assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also
resident in Britain.
".
[Constitution
Of The British National Party
Eighth Edition,
published November 2004(PDF)] (Which is

interpreted to include Jews
—thus one BNP elected
official,

Pat Richardson
, a local councilor, is Jewish).

 

The
BNP rule is said to be illegal under the

Race Relations Act 1976
as amended in 2000. If
successful, the court action will force the BNP to open
its membership to all applicants regardless of their
colour.

This
is a politically-motivated prosecution. The BNP has long
upset the people who now rule
Britain
. Its
denunciations of mass-immigration and of
multiculturalism disrupt what would otherwise be an
almost smooth wall of praise—or at least of caution—by
the other parties.


Despite

universal
condemnation in the

media
, the BNP has made considerable gains during
the past few years in local elections, and managed to
win two seats in June this year to the European
Parliament. It may win a seat in the British Parliament
at the next general election. Stopping the BNP is

high on the agenda of the powers that be
.

This
being said,
shutting
down
a

political party
simply because it dissents from the
established multicultural faith is not something that is
yet done in
Britain
. It is too
openly an attack on freedom of speech. It may also be
illegal under the

Human Rights Act 1998
, which enacts the European
Convention on Human Rights into British law.


Nevertheless, the party stands to be ruined partly by
the costs of legal action, and partly by the effects of
losing the legal action.

These
effects have been clearly spelled out by some of the
BNP`s enemies. According to the

Blog
of Operation
Black Vote
,

“Nic Careem,
[Email
him
]a former
Labour activist from Camden in north London, who is now
with the Conservatives, said he originally argued that
black and Asian people should join the BNP en mass

[sic] to cause
chaos and expose the extent of racism inside the party
of Nick Griffin.”

In
other words, the BNP is to be flooded with non-whites,
who will then use further legal action—assuming the
internal structures of the party are insufficient—to
destroy it.

This
attack on the BNP is abhorrent for a number of reasons.



  • First
    ,
    it is indirectly an attack on freedom of speech.

We in
Britain are

endlessly told
nowadays that freedom of speech does
not involve the right to preach hatred and
“intolerance”.
But it does. Freedom of speech means the right to say
anything at all on any public issue, and to make any
recommendation on what the law should be.

I was
born into a Britain where this understanding was broadly
accepted. I live now in a country where it is not. Thus

Simon Woolley
[Email
him
] of Operation Black Vote dismisses freedom of
speech as an almost
sacred cow
. He even

appeals
for support to the majesty of the British
Constitution:

“Over centuries our
unwritten constitution has given us a framework for our
democracy. From

Magna Carta
to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act
2000, our democracy has evolved to reflect our changing
times. This framework gives us a democracy which, for
all its limitations, seeks to balance individual
freedoms with fairness and tolerance.”

In
the technical sense, Woolley may be right. Being

unwritten
, the British Constitution is whatever the
authorities

decide it to be
.

But
his claim is irrelevant. A constitution does not
legitimise oppression. Rather, it is legitimate so far
as it protects rights. If the British Constitution no
longer guarantees freedom of speech, so much the worse
for the Constitution.



  • Second
    , as said, the authorities are frightened to make a direct attack on
    freedom of speech. Instead, they are relying on laws
    that abolish

    freedom of association
    .

But
this is barely less important within the liberal
tradition than freedom of speech. The two rights
complement each other. Freedom of speech is the right to
say anything. Freedom of association involves the right
to propagate what is said. It means the right of people
to
come together for any purpose
that does not involve
aggression against others.


Obviously, it also means the right
not to
associate. Laws imposing

equal access to employment
, or paid services, or
membership of private associations, are not an extension
of rights, but a denial of rights. By forcing people to
associate with persons whom they would otherwise reject,
anti-discrimination laws are a form of coerced
association. They also allow dissident organisations to
be taken over and destroyed.



  • Third
    ,
    if the form of the attack is hypocritical, so is the
    substance. The BNP is not the only organisation that
    seeks to confine its membership to members of a
    particular race. But it is the only organisation the
    EHRC is taking to court.

The
Lincolnshire Black Police Association, for example,
declares on its

website
—rather, it declares on its section of the
official web site of the
 
Lincolnshire Police Force—that

“Membership
applications for the LBPA are invited from everybody.
Full Membership is available to all Black Minority
Ethnic staff of the Lincolnshire Police. Associate
Membership is open to ALL members of the Lincolnshire
Police and outside agencies who wish to support the work
of the LBPA.”

I am
told that these confessions of racial discrimination are
being hurriedly taken down from the Internet. However,
the BNP has

published a selection of screen shots
from the
Lincolnshire and other branches of the Black Police
Association. The EHRC has so far refused even to
acknowledge complaints of this racial discrimination.

And
even if the Black Police Association should take down
the offending words and open its full membership to all,
there is no chance of its being flooded by hostile
whites. There are no white equivalents of Operation
Black Vote or other ethnic advocacy groups.

Any
whites groups that did form would soon be prosecuted or
harassed out of existence. Any individual whites who
joined would themselves be evangelists of the
multicultural faith. If not, they would be chased out
with violence or threats of violence that the modern
Politically Correct

British police
—memorably
described
by  purged


National Review
editor

John O`Sullivan
as
“the paramilitary
wing of the
Guardian
,
the leading left-wing newspaper—would now do nothing to
investigate.



  • Fourth
    ,
    it is at least interesting to see how the language
    of rights has been perverted into a cover for
    oppression. The Equality and Human Rights Commission
    promotes equality by discriminating against whites,
    and protects human rights by attacking freedom of
    association as a means of neutering freedom of
    speech.

It is
also interesting that the EHRC Commissioner overseeing
the BNP prosecution is

John Wadham
. He was once Director of

Liberty
, which is supposed to be the main
independent guardian in this country of civil and
political rights.

At a
public meeting in 2001, I accused Mr Wadham of not
caring about the liberties of anyone perceived to be on
the political
“right”
. This sent him into a rhetorical frenzy. A
few weeks later, I felt almost guilty at how roughly I
had treated him when I read

this
in a letter of his to
The Daily
Telegraph
:

[H]uman rights are primarily about limiting the power of the central state
in its dealing with the individual citizen.”


According to the

accounts
of the body that the EHRC replaced, Mr
Wadham`s salary in the year to the 31st March
2008 was £78,548. [VDARE.COM:

roughly
$127,735 US
]
I will limit my
comments on this fact to observing that his salary—and
it has probably risen by a third in the past 18
months—is at least three times his probable worth in any
market-based employment.

By
way of a conclusion, I feel I ought to give my opinion
on the BNP. This is that I fear its success.

The
next Conservative Government will fail to reverse the
disasters that Labour has brought on the country. This
is because the Conservatives do not even intend to try
for a counter-revolution. When the failure has become
manifest, people will turn to the only alternative party
that has forthrightly denounced the Labour revolution
and has an

existing electoral base.
This will be the BNP.

I
fear that the BNP will,

by default
, become the only viable champion of
counter-revolution.

Now,
I am not frightened that the BNP is a party of national
socialists, and that its leaders are counting the days
till they can rip off their business suits, to show the
black and red uniforms beneath. Under its present
leader,
Nick
Griffin
, the BNP has become a
white
nationalist
party. The party believes in the
expulsion of illegal immigrants, an in some voluntary
repatriation of non-whites who are legally here, and in
dismantling the Equal Opportunities police state from
which people like Mr Wadham benefit. Other than this, a
BNP Government might easily show more respect for the
forms of a liberal constitution than have the Labour
governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown—after all,
this would not be difficult.

The
problem is that the BNP and much of its leading
personnel used to be national socialists. There are too many published
statements in praise of Hitler or denouncing the Jews.

Of
course, people change their opinions over time.
Middle-aged men are not necessarily to be judged on what
they said or wrote in their late teens.

That
excuse has been made and accepted for the Ministers in
the Labour Government. Many of these in their younger
days were

Trotskyite
street bullies.

Peter Mandelson
, who is effectively deputy Prime
Minister, joined the Young Communist League three years
after the
Soviet
invasion of Czechoslovakia
, and used to sell the

Communist Morning
Star
. John Reid, who was a
Home Secretary in the Blair Government,
was a member
of the Communist Party in his late twenties, and was
noted for his admiration of

Josef Stalin.
It would be easy to fill an article
with the disreputable pasts of those who have ruled this
country since 1997.

If
there were any fairness in politics, they would be
regarded as no less disreputable than the leaders of the
BNP.

But
there is no fairness in politics. A man can deny the
Soviet holocaust—or even admit that it happened but try
to justify it—and remain in good standing with the media
and educational Establishments. The slightest whisper of
approval for the lesser horrors of National Socialism,
and a man is tainted for life.

This
is unfair, but it is a fact that must be accepted. I can
easily imagine how the BNP might replace the useless
Conservatives as main opponents to what has been done to
this country. I can also imagine how the movement then
led by the BNP might be smeared and discredited out of
existence.

Even
so, if I can have no longing for a BNP breakthrough at
the next but one general election, neither can I regard
the legal proceedings against it as other than a classic
illustration of how to run a post-modern tyranny.

The
British State has no Gestapo, no KGB. But why would it
need one when it has the Equality and Human Rights
Commission?



Dr. Sean Gabb



[
Email
him
]
is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the


Libertarian
Alliance

in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution,
Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to
Get It Back
is downloadable



here
.
For his account of the



Property and Freedom Society`s 2008 conference

in Bodrum, Turkey, click



here
.
For his address to the 2009 PFS conference, “What is
the Ruling Class?”
, click



here
;
for videos of the



other presentations
,
click


here
.