By James Bethell, Director of Nothing British.
Two attempts to legislate against the BNP reached different conclusions today, revealing a muddle at the heart of government which plays into the hands of Nick Griffin during the important build-up to his key election battles in Barking and Stoke this May.
This morning the Maurice Smith Review rejected the suggestion made by a teaching union of an “endemic culture of institutional racism” in the schools system. The former Chief Inspector of Schools turned down calls for a specific ban on teachers who are members of the BNP. The review was a wrong-headed initiative in the first place, an opportunistically-timed autumn headline for the Education Secretary, it was redolent of the hapless cynicism of Yes, Minister’s Jim Hacker.
The misleading impression given by Ed Balls suggested a racist conspiracy to subvert our 500,000 teachers which required firm central government action. Smith found no such evidence and limited the damage by producing a short report with minimal fuss (and no expensive touchy-feely pictures, which is a nice change) that rehearses the well-known argument that there are already multiple protections for our children against the unproven threat of racist teachers peddling sectarianism in the classroom. He has wisely recommended that no further measures against the BNP are necessary (and it’s worth noting that his remit did not include any other extremist organisations like the Islamic Forum of Europe or Hizb ut-Tahrir).
A few hours later, the courts rejected draft amendments from the BNP to their illegal whites-only constitution. Gone is the notorious “indigenous Caucasian” genetic test. Instead there is a loyalty test, with the BNP requiring potential members to be "implacably opposed to the promotion, by any means, of integration or assimilation". Another clause expresses opposition to mixed-race marriages. An intimidating two-hour test in people’s homes gives potential members a chance to demonstrate their commitment to these points.
The EHRC are quick to argue that, while it is not unlawful to hold discriminatory views, it is unlawful for such principles to be used for controlled entry to a political party. I am not a lawyer, but a quick reading of the act suggests the courts are right to raise these objections to indirect discrimination, as described in section 1b Race Relations Act 1976.
But, as Maurice Smith must have concluded in his investigation, there must surely be a line at which you hold back the full force of the state from coming down on a party like the BNP in case your efforts become counter-productive. It was right to challenge the BNP’s obnoxious whites only policy, as it would be right to challenge any similar restrictions on the basis of race. But there’s no need to go the whole hog.
The courts should realise that the sight of taxpayer-funded quango-crats and judges, no matter how well-meaning, using the resources of the state to hobble and bankrupt people with unfashionable views in the name of “anti-racism” serves to further alienate the type of dispossessed white working class who already feel like they suffer the worst of all worlds and it helps build Griffin’s narrative of the “lonely patriot” fighting an over-mighty, treacherous state edifice.
Griffin is clearly playing a game with the courts and he seems to have calculated that he is a net beneficiary of a David-and-Goliath story amongst his followers. Meanwhile the courts are, quite rightly, trying to effect meaningful change that removes an obnoxious affront to British politics, and maybe even opens the doors to reformers.
But these courts must not take the law to the extreme, because they might bring themselves into disrepute amongst people who already feel distant from the delivery of justice. And politicians must not harbour the hope that judges will do their job for them, because there is enormous pain in this country that has yet to be faced, and our mainstream politicians must realise that they cannot ignore it for much longer.
Saturday morning update:
In an email to supporters last night (Friday), Nick Griffin confirmed that he has removed controversial "Section 4" membership amendments to the constitution that require applicants to demonstrate commitment to BNP policies like an opposition to mass migration, integration and mixed marriages. Griffin writes that he makes this move with regret, that he believes it meets the requirements of the court order, and that consequently he will start processing membership forms immediately.
It is not clear yet how the court will react to this legal manoeuvre, though Sky News speculate that the judge may regard it as a cynical move that does not meet the spirit of the court order. Either way, it's time the courts somehow closed down this damaging circus as soon as possible.
