Wednesday, June 24, 2009
BNP Ruled Offside By Membership Discrimination?
There always seemed a contradiction about that, I have always thought. The simplistic version of democracy enjoins us to allow everyone to have their say and be elected if they can accumulate enough votes. But the inclusivity precept has been enshrined in law for some years now via the Race Relations Act and the BNP is allegedly in breach of three of its provisions. Given that the BNP would like to send immigrants back to where they come from, it is hardly surprising they discriminate against ethnic minorities by specifying their membership open to those who according to its constitution, are of
"'indigenous Caucasian' and defined 'ethnic groups' emanating from that race".
It's hard not to agree with Peter Tatchell who says:
"I am astonished that successive governments have allowed the BNP to get away with the exclusion of non-white people, many people who voted for them as a protest may not have done so if they had known."
Final thought: why do all the BNP supporters in the picture look like air stewardesses?
If people cannot express their support for the BNP at the ballot box, we cease to be a democracy. Simple. You don't have to like them. I would ban many far-left parties in an ideal world, and could find many things about them I don't like. But it is wrong.
Tatchell bleats and screams of fascism when councils refuse to fund his freak shows in our cities, and try to spend their money on the things that decent people want.
He is a waste of space.
Not sure it's quite so simple to allow all comers in a democracy. For example, would you be in favour of a party which urged genocide upon a minority within a country?
The Nazis more of less did that, and rose to power on it, if Ian Kershaw's classic biography of Hitler is to be believed. Even the most liberal democracy has to have some limits; the question is, do the BNP breach such limits of acceptability? The law, as it stands, says not.
Hitler's popularity had very little to do with the advocacy of genocide. The failures of the Weimar Republic made his rise inevitable. In fact Hitler knew that the German people had little appetite for anti-semitism(witness his virtual silence on the subject from 1929-33).
The lesson of Nazi Germany is not to suppress minority parties, but for political elites to address the concerns of real people and to root out corruption. 21st Century Britain has done neither. For Weimar decadence, filth and corruption, read Nu Labor. The BNP's success should thus surprise noone.
Hitler only moderated his anti-semitism because it was affecting the flow of funds to his political cause. He was quite open about it before and after he gained power and you must be joking when you say the German people had little appetite for anti-semitism....? The historical record proves otherwise.
The big business funds were always assured after the Communists gained strength and Hitler abandoned socialism in the shape of the 25 points of 1920. Rather than being sympathetic to anti-semitism, big business was amoral(although recognised Jew's economic value economic value - thus in some cases was against anti-semitism). Hitler's argument with the Jews had nothing to do with economics(as articulated by Michael Burleigh).
Hitler certainly believed these things, but his statements(and those of Himmler during the war) show that they understood the German people had a long way to go on this.
This is Labour not the BNP.
You are illegal for coming here to look for a better life, you did not have money otherwise we'd welcome you.
I think myself the BNP are a racist bunch of thugs, but I will fight for the right for them to exist because it's a Democratic system we have here.
I have to agree mind you with people who say how can we have a Police federations, the federation of Black officers, and now the association of Muslim officer, what next the white federation, because legally you cannot say no, if you have a Black police federation, it's odd how for years we fought for the rights of people to be treated the same and then separate ourselves.
Realising I'm reaching the limits of my knowledge here I consulted my colleague Dr Guy Tourlemain, who is an expewrt on Nazi Germany.
He 'does not share the view that trhere was no anti-semitism among the German people' though acknowledges it was a widespread phenomenon in other countries. How far it 'permeated society' he sees as 'difficult to say' though he shares the widespread sceptiocism regarding Goldhagen's thesis that their species of anti-semitism was 'exterminatory'.
He concludes there were many reasons for supporting the Nazis and that one could not say anti-semitism was the most compelling.
So there we have a balanced view from a distinguished young historian, which is about the best I can do on this very wide and much disputed topic.
You must also have set a world record in providing the fastest response yet to a comment posting
Links to this post: