VDARE.com: 11/09/10 – A Nail in the Fuse Box: The Persecution of the British National Party


November 09, 2010

A Nail in the Fuse Box: The Persecution of the British National Party

By Sean Gabb

The suppression of political parties is becoming an interesting feature of life in the managerial superstate known as the European Union It happened six years ago in Belgium, to the anti-immigration Vlaams Blok. And in London, High Court hearings have just (November 8th and 9th) that will determine the fate of the British National Party. Since judgment was reserved, we do not yet know whether BNP assets will be seized and whether party leader Nick Griffin, who is an elected Member of the European Parliament, will be sent to prison. We do know what has become of England: it is now a soft totalitarian police state.

For those who may be unaware of it, the British National Party is what its name says it is. It opposes immigration and the associated political correctness and attacks on freedom of speech and association. It also opposes British membership of the European Union and British involvement in wars of military aggression that do nothing to secure the peace and prosperity of the British people. And it is contemptuous of the claims about man-made climate change that are an excuse for the massive enrichment of ruling classes everywhere.

Not surprisingly, the BNP is not popular with the British ruling class. This has been hard at work for at least two generations on destroying a constitution that, since the High Middle Ages, had been uniquely effective at restraining power. This is a ruling class that rejoices in having put common law protections through a shredding machine; and in alienating sovereignty to a mass of foreign and even unknown organisations, to the point where democracy has become a joke; and in sponsoring the mass immigration needed to reduce working class living standards and to justify totalitarian “anti-racist” witch-hunts.

Yes, not surprisingly, the BNP is a witch that must be hunted. It is described as a “racist” party, and its members as violent and even psychopathic criminals. Its leader, Nick Griffin, is remarkable for his ability to assemble softly-spoken persons of quality into something like a baying mob.

To describe all the ways in which Mr. Griffin and his party are persecuted would take an essay which would also be a dissertation on the growth of the British police state. I have not the space to write such an essay. Therefore, I will look at the two chief current persecutions.

  • The first was announced on Tuesday the 2nd November 2010: Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, told The Guardian newspaper that he would allow headmasters of state schools to dismiss any teachers known to be members of the BNP.

The ostensible reason for this is that members of the BNP cannot be trusted not to preach “hatred” in the classroom. Mr. Gove said:

“I don’t believe that membership of the BNP is compatible with being a teacher. One of the things I plan to do is to allow headteachers and governing bodies the powers and confidence to be able to dismiss teachers engaging in extremist activity.”[BNP members to be barred from teaching |Education secretary pledges new powers for heads to dismiss teachers who are members of groups with ‘extremist tenor’, by Jeevan Vasagar]

Gove did add that this permission to dismiss would also cover members of other “extremist” organisations. However, it is to be doubted if radical Moslems and members of Trotskyite groups will be at risk of losing their jobs. There are too many of them in teaching, and they are too well-organised and too well-connected.

The permission might eventually be extended to religious Jews and Christians who refuse to celebrate the rich diversity of sexual orientations that is part of our established faith in England. Or it might not. But the permission will certainly be used ruthlessly to seek out and remove all schoolteachers who are, or who might have been, members of the BNP.

  • The second persecution has been under way for a couple of years: the concerted effort by the managerial state to suppress the BNP.

There is in England a taxpayer-funded body called the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This was set up under the Equality Act 2006, and it ostensibly exists to ensure that people are treated fairly and have their rights respected. One of its main actual functions has been to sue the BNP to the verge of bankruptcy in the name of “human rights”.

In August 2009, the Commission began proceedings against the BNP under sections 24 and 25(5) of the Equality Act, on the grounds that BNP membership was confined to natives of the British Isles and white foreigners. Apparently, it was a violation of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended) that non-whites were not allowed to join a party committed to keeping Britain predominantly white.

Since then, the Commission has been lavishing the taxpayers’ money on an action that is supposed to vindicate the right of non-whites to join the BNP—a questionable cause of action, bearing in mind that few non-whites can really be aching to join an organisation like the BNP, and bearing in mind that the British State overall has been running the biggest budget deficit in the civilised world.

But vindicating abstract rights has not been the purpose of the action. Its real purpose has been to shut down the BNP. The legal proceedings could achieve this in three ways:

First, the BNP might lose and be compelled to admit large numbers of non-white members. These could then exploit its internal structures or take further legal action until there was no more BNP.

Second, the BNP might lose and then be sued again for breach of the final order. This could result in forfeiture of all party assets and the jailing of Mr. Griffin.

Third, win or lose, the BNP might be forced into bankruptcy by the costs of defending an action that had unlimited funding.

This real purpose became absolutely clear in the March of 2010, when the BNP did change its rules to admit non-whites, and the Commission immediately moved to the second option in its strategy for destruction. The BNP imposed two conditions on new members to prevent flooding attempts. First, prospective members should be visited at home, to see if they were suitable for membership. Second, all members should declare support for the “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race, and should support action towards "stemming and reversing" immigration. The Commission argued that these conditions amounted to “indirect racial discrimination”.

The Commission won that round. On the 12th March 2010, a Judge outlawed the requirement for home visits, saying that this might lead to intimidation—though admitting that there was no evidence it ever had. He also outlawed the requirement to declare support for party principle and policy. He said:

“I hold that the BNP are likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within section 1b Race Relations Act 1976 in the terms on which they are prepared to admit persons to membership under the 12th addition of their constitution.” [New BNP membership rules judged to be biased, Manchester Evening News, March 12, 2010]

The reason for this, the Judge went on, was that no non-white person could support these policies without compromising his “personal sense of self-worth and dignity as a member of their racial group”.

And so the BNP changed its membership rules again—it would now accept members regardless of whether they agreed with its policies.

However, these conditions for membership were only suspended by the BNP, not removed. And so the Commission went to court again, this time arguing that the BNP was in contempt for not complying in full with the earlier judgment.

As I reported earlier, judgement has been reserved. We can, however, be sure that, if the Commission turns out to have lost, it will find some other grounds of continuing its taxpayer-funded vendetta against the BNP.

How much more of this the BNP can take before it goes bankrupt is hard to say. As of August 2010, the BNP was said to be £500,000 in debt. This is about a quarter of its annual income. Much of this debt appears to have been run up in legal costs.

Every time I write one of these articles about the persecution of the BNP, I get several dozen e-mails from people who claim that the party really is a national socialist organization, and that its recent conversion, under Nick Griffin, is a convenient lie.

I find this an irrelevant claim. I happen to believe that the BNP is a white nationalist organization. Even if it were not, though—even if the BNP leadership really did believe that non-whites were less than human and that the Holocaust never happened, but should have—the rights and wrongs of this case would be unchanged.

It is unfair to treat people in this manner. What has been done, and is being done, to the BNP is oppressive. It is not the sort of thing that happens in a functioning liberal democracy. In a liberal democracy, people have an unquestioned right to say whatever they please on public issues—and they do not suffer even official discrimination, let alone legal harassment. In a liberal democracy, they have an unquestioned right to associate or not with whomever they please—and are not subject to administrative and legal bullying about “inclusiveness” and the unacceptability of “hate”. The fact that BNP members and the party itself are victims of state harassment—and, as said, there is much more than the two instances just given—indicates just how much England has moved towards totalitarianism.

I go further. If Nick Griffin and the BNP were openly avowed followers of Adolf Hitler, and if they met together in public to listen to the webcasts of Harold Covington, they would probably be more left alone than they are. They are persecuted for their opinions on race and immigration. But they are persecuted still more because of all else they oppose or stand for. For all it did badly in the elections of May 2010 (in terms of seats—as two left wing blogs perceptively noted here and here, it did strikingly well in terms of votes) the BNP remains the one possible voice for working class dissent from the established order of things.

And though unfair in itself, what is being done to the BNP should make any reasonable man worried about the future of England. Anyone who looks at the various manifestos and pronouncements of the BNP will see a party that claims to believe—and possibly does believe—in freedom of speech and association, in trial by jury, and generally in constitutional government as this has always been understood in England. It does not even advocate compulsory repatriation of those non-whites who are legally here. Whatever it may or may not believe in private, the BNP leadership is very distant in what it says from the Hitler-loving caricatures shown in the MainStream Media.

But destroy the BNP, and the result will not be a vacuum. Other movements will emerge. These will be less interested in organising to win elections and debates than in arguing their case on the streets. Already, there is an English Defence League that has no apparent interest in electoral politics. This is almost certainly less thuggish than the ruling class and the MSM claim it to be. Equally, though, it is less constitutional in its aims and methods than the BNP. And the English Defence League may be only the beginning of the next stage in working class dissent from the established order of things.

Until modern trip switches (circuit breakers) became the norm, household wiring in England was protected from overheating by wired fuses. Each ceramic fuse contained about an inch and a half of wire to a stated ampage. This connected power as it came into a property to one ring circuit. Any power surge or appliance failure would result in immediate burning out of the fuse. The fuses were deliberately the weakest point in the whole wiring system. One reason they have now been replaced with trip switches is because many people were in the habit of replacing fuse wires with nails. This meant that fuses never blew—instead, houses burned down.

What the British State is doing to the BNP is the political equivalent of sticking a nail in the fuse box. The destruction of the BNP will buy a few more years of life for the politically correct fantasy of England as a country of enlightenment and universal love.

What may follow is well enough known to any student of history.

VDARE.com: 11/09/10 – A Nail in the Fuse Box: The Persecution of the British National Party

16 responses to “VDARE.com: 11/09/10 – A Nail in the Fuse Box: The Persecution of the British National Party

  1. If you look carefully with a snooperscope, the veneer of Political-Enemy-Class-corruption, placed on purpose on top of England, is really rather thin.

    It’s like French Polish.

    It could be broken quite easily, by a little carefully-applied influence.

  2. Persecution and hysteria aside, one person is responsible for the destruction of the BNP – Nick Griffin. Having obtained a smidgeon of power he demonstrated the falsity of the old canard that only Jews love money.

    Since being elected to the European Parliament he has done nothing. the National Front – which transformed into the BNP via the New National Front – was founded by that greatest of British patriots AK Chesterton, who fought for Britain in two world wars. But Chesterton recognised where Hitler was right as well as where he was wrong, and was in the forefront of the movement of freeing Britain from the banks. Debt-free money was a major plank of NF policy. Under Griffin there has been no mention of it.

    Neither has he or his party done anything locally in the areas where they have councillors. Instead, as well as plundering the party’s coffers, he has attempted to cosy up to the Zionist lobby by peddling the Islamic menace. He and his supporters have even made pathetic attacks on anti-Semitism and attempted to portray the fascistic state of Israel as a “comrade in arms” which have all the sincerity of a turkey relishing the onset of Christmas.

    Obviously, Organised Jewry have not been fooled, so he will be left out in the cold. The one bit of good that has come of this is a new realism about immigration, though of course not about race.

  3. What concerns me is how little people respond the the argument of political freedom. When i argue that people should have political freedom people response with ‘yes, but…… the BNP are evil racists so therefore they should be suppressed’

    The idea that even unpleasant opinions should be tolerated is not widely accepted, a very intolerant attitude has been inculcated in the publics minds.

  4. Martin Chambers

    I think this is a brilliant article well written, and the sooner the British people get to realize what the BNP are all about they will soon get to know that they are the only political party that wants to retain the history and identity of the British people.
    Why can’t we be ruled by a government based in Parliament in London, rather than a fiasco based in Brussels.
    We have managed very successfully since abiding bythe Magna Charta signed in 1215. why change it now.
    Nick Griffin I applaud you, and all that you are trying to do to save this country, instead of the likes of Cameron, Clegg, Gove Hague, Blair, Brown, Straw who are and have been giving it away slowly but surely.
    I have heard it said that quote ” How many Euro’s of the taxpayers money has gone into the pockets of these politicians to give their country away” unquote.
    You know Sean, I can see that nail has gone beyond the stages of being red hot, it is now White Hot, and what is going to happen next will be a matter of history. Perhaps it has already started with students riots in London today, November 10th

  5. Martin Chambers, the issue isn’t whether the BNP are good or bad, it is whether society should tolerate opinions that are percieved as ‘extreme’ or in some way unpleasant.

    Getting into the argument about whether the BNP has good policies or not is a total distraction from the real matter.

  6. This is another excellent piece on the state’s efforts to put a legally constituted political party out of business, but it also illustrates a rather worrying element in Dr Gabb’s recent writings on the BNP. I realise that Dr Gabb thinks it dishonourable to preface any defence of the BNP’s right to exist with a throat-clearing denunciation of its policies. Nevertheless, there’s a big difference between resisting the temptation to denounce the BNP and engaging in apologetics for it. The second paragraph of this article comes perilously close to sounding like the work of a card-carrying far-rightist. It’s also extremely naive. Dr Gabb may be right in saying that the BNP shouldn’t be regarded as an ambiguously fascist organisation, but there’s little doubt that its vision of politics is an extremely authoritarian one. Just ask yourself: Would freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the principle of moral autonomy really be safe under a Griffin administration? Clearly not.

    Sean Gabb’s magnificently forensic analyses of the state’s assault on our liberties won’t be taken seriously if he acquires a reputation as an apologist for the BNP. Snap out of it, Dr Gabb.

  7. In my post I meant “unambiguously fascist organisation”, not “ambiguously fascist organisation”. Apologies.

  8. I think that if the British State was trying to shut down the Communist Party of Great Britain by legal force, and other covert means of coercion, Dr Gabb would also leap to its defence.

    Specially if the State gallivanted about, saying to schools, headmasters and mistresses and to the Police, and to media organisations…”We want to see to it that nobody who is a member of the CPGB, or was in the past, or who might be prone to become one, should be employed.”

  9. Leapman (doesn’t sound like an English name…), SG is absolutely right not to preface a denunciation of what the state is doing to free speech with a denunciation of the BNP. It is strictly irrelevant what we think of the BNP – it is the state that is in the wrong here. Forcing parties to accept members who don’t agree with their policies – English people are being left with no means of politically organising in their self-interest.

  10. As a libertarian, I am by definition, not a supporter of the BNP. However, I do think it thoroughly dishonourable to play the ruling class game of denouncing the BNP before daring to defend its right to exist and function.

    This is that I am supposed to say: “I bow to no man in my hatred and contempt of these evil men. Indeed, I am myself one seventh Tibetan and a quarter Aztec. And so it is surely out of a – possibly misguided – commitment to old-fashioned liberalism if I say that they should not be utterly destroyed by the authorities.”

    No thanks. The BNP and its members have a right to fair treatment. I will not ceremoniously hold my nose while saying this. Though irrelevant to the main point, it is worth saying where they are not as bad as they are portrayed.

    DD is right that we’d make the same defence of Communists. We may even one day find outselves defending Moslems.

  11. The issue is what can practically be done about the state’s antics. In a country where most of the population is more interested in some celebrity’s vaginal itch than in freedom.

  12. @Mr Ecks
    The shifting of the populace’s taregt-of-interest has been done on purpose by the Ruling Political-Enemy-Class. It has been done over some decades: surreptitiously at first, and sometimes in the name of “art”, such as Kenneth Tynan uttering the word ” f*** ” on live tele vision. But later, by bodily shifting the focus and “edgy-ness” of broadcasting towards stimulatingly-ephemeral things rather than objectively useful and good things.

    There really is objectively-clear good, and objectively-clear trash. Programmes about the engineering principles behind the building and laying out of the Great Western Main Line to Bristol, for example, are objectively useful and good. Programmes about someone called Sherril Coal are not. The woman is merely a “star”, whatever that might be, and for a little time, and she will fade into obscurity.

    People would make this same value-judgement today if they had not stopped being told to, clearly and loudly, after the mid-1960s, via “managed schooling” and changes in the output of the media.

    Mistakes as big as what has happened, as Ayn Rand I think said, have to have been deliberate.

  13. I didn’t say that Dr Gabb was wrong not to denounce the BNP before defending its right to exist. What I did say was that in the second paragraph of his article he came very close to sounding like a supporter of the BNP. That’s a very different matter.

  14. If he was a supporter of the BNP, would it matter?

    Are all supporters of the BNP, whoever they might be, to be execrated automatically before any other business is to be done?

  15. Sean, I would like to congratulate your work in general and congratulate your even handedness when discussing the British National Party.

    I know that you are not particularly a fan of the party, but I do believe that you have a pretty good understanding of what the general issues are and perhaps also understand why it holds some of the positions it does, even though you may not agree with them.

    It is a breath of fresh air to read some level headed analysis of what is being done to the party in the much wider context, and what it means for all of us. I do not see this angle being covered in any “mainstream” media outlet, although I am personally far from surprised at that.

    The idea of the current hegemony being able to dictate what people can and can not believe in and vote for (or work towards the safeguarding of) is pretty appalling in my view.

    Surely people should join a party which they agree with, rather than one they don’t (by forcing the said party to abandon all the core principles and policies of why it even exists). Either the policies and ideas win support on their own merit, or they don’t. People do not have to join, it is their free choice!

    This whole affair is, in my opinion, most certainly a persecution of a thorn in the establishment’s side.

    Again, thank you for being willing to talk about this subject so rationally, honestly and openly.



  16. “he BNP will see a party that claims to believe—and possibly does believe—in freedom of speech and association”

    Yet they want to ban the promotion of racial miscegenation in the media … so perhaps not.