The British National Party, a far-right nationalist racist socialist party (socialist? Just look at its economic policy, health policy and education policy), has been told by the Central London County Court that it must not prohibit membership on the grounds of race and religion. The Equality and Human Rights Commission brought the case. Why? Because it wanted to embarrass the BNP.
It is incredibly unlikely that anyone who isn't a white British chav bigot at least nominally Christian person would seek to join this gang of malcontents, so it isn't as if it was a real issue for any individual. Not as if it would be legitimate anyway.
The real issue is that it should be nobody else's business. If the BNP wants to be racist, so it should have that freedom. Stripping this right helps to make the party seem more mainstream, more acceptable. Exposing its own braindead irrationality is GOOD for those seeking to keep it far from power.
However, to say it cannot restrict by religion is more insidious. Race is not a matter of choice, religion is. Religion is, like politics, a set of deeply held views. You may as well say the BNP can't prohibit Marxist members. Are political parties going to be forced to allow anyone to be a member, including those actively opposed to what they stand for?
The BNP is a private organisation. Its membership is voluntary. If you don't like the rules, don't join. It should not be the state's business who is allowed or banned from joining political parties, regardless of the philosophy behind him.
All this does is play into the BNP's hands, helps it become more mainstream, and strips another layer of freedom away that can be used against others.
Will Mosques be required to admit Jews? Will the Conservative Party be forced to admit communists? Will the Green Party be forced to admit laissez-faire capitalists?
Fascists should be allowed to be fascists, exclude whoever they like and be the knuckle dragging vermin they are. For they are no more offensive than the finger pointing parasites who create such absurd laws because non-existent people have non-existent offence over self-defined pseudo-rights.
It is incredibly unlikely that anyone who isn't a white British chav bigot at least nominally Christian person would seek to join this gang of malcontents, so it isn't as if it was a real issue for any individual. Not as if it would be legitimate anyway.
The real issue is that it should be nobody else's business. If the BNP wants to be racist, so it should have that freedom. Stripping this right helps to make the party seem more mainstream, more acceptable. Exposing its own braindead irrationality is GOOD for those seeking to keep it far from power.
However, to say it cannot restrict by religion is more insidious. Race is not a matter of choice, religion is. Religion is, like politics, a set of deeply held views. You may as well say the BNP can't prohibit Marxist members. Are political parties going to be forced to allow anyone to be a member, including those actively opposed to what they stand for?
The BNP is a private organisation. Its membership is voluntary. If you don't like the rules, don't join. It should not be the state's business who is allowed or banned from joining political parties, regardless of the philosophy behind him.
All this does is play into the BNP's hands, helps it become more mainstream, and strips another layer of freedom away that can be used against others.
Will Mosques be required to admit Jews? Will the Conservative Party be forced to admit communists? Will the Green Party be forced to admit laissez-faire capitalists?
Fascists should be allowed to be fascists, exclude whoever they like and be the knuckle dragging vermin they are. For they are no more offensive than the finger pointing parasites who create such absurd laws because non-existent people have non-existent offence over self-defined pseudo-rights.
2 comments:
An interesting post. I must admit I have serious reservations about libertarians turning the civil rights clock back 80 years.
But you make a good case, as always.
Ruth, I think the state should vigorously be colour blind and not discriminate, per se, but the case for private clubs or associations to do so has to be in the context of them being able to be denounced and boycotted for doing so.
Part of the problem is that anyone boycotting businesses or private organisations for such behaviour may be seen to be being discriminatory as well.
It is a situation I'd like to see progress to - so people react to discrimination directly through free speech.
The BNP will face an audience on BBC Question Time this week for the first time. This in itself is controversial, we all have to pay to give these lot a platform (like we give the other parties).
Post a Comment