Civil Service to impose BNP membership ban?

[Phang]

Civil service BNP ban considered

The Home Office is considering whether to ban BNP members from working in the civil service.

Martin Narey, the government's diversity champion, is working on the issue but no decision has been taken.

A Home Office spokesman emphasised the matter has not yet been discussed with ministers and is still at civil servant level.

The Association of Chief Police Officers recently decided officers could not be BNP members.

The British National Party has done well in recent elections, and says it is wrong to stop people from being members of a legal political party. The party denies it is racist.

Former anti-apartheid activist and Commons leader Peter Hain described the BNP as a "vile party of Nazis and thugs" and suggested last week that its members were not fit for office.

In November last year, Home Secretary David Blunkett backed a ban on police officers being BNP members, and chief constables agreed the measure two months ago.

'Totalitarianism' claim

The Sunday Times reported that civil service unions had already been consulted over a ban.

It quoted Charles Cochrane, secretary of the Council of Civil Service Unions which represents 400,000 workers, as saying there was an "inescapable logic" behind a ban.

"There isn't any fundamental legal obstacle to this."

But it is understood that new legislation might be needed to enforce a ban.

The BNP has said bans on membership are "anti-democratic" and could challenge any proscription using the Human Rights Act.

But if brought in, the civil service would argue, like the police have, that being a member breaches rules on diversity.

BNP spokesman Phil Edwards told the Sunday Times: "This is totalitarianism, Soviet-style. It shows they are extremely worried."

source

Personally I'm in favour of it. I realise that, unlike the police force, membership of a pro-lunacy party does not actually decrease your suitability for the job. However, rational debate and the tactic of 'make their arguments look stupid with logic' doesn't seem to work with the BNP. They spin sensible discussion as proof of their legitimacy and that's what gets them 130,000 votes in one area and 800,000 votes in total. Repression is the only way to deal with these Nazi bastards; can you imagine what would happen if the current trend continued and they got a Member?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

Repression is the only way to deal with these Nazi bastards;

lol? You're joking, right?

can you imagine what would happen if the current trend continued and they got a Member?

Yes, absolutley nothing. There have been two Communist MPs in the post-war period and it made almost zero impact on the world.

I think the idea of a ban is completely disgusting. Aside from anything else you are setting down the precedent that it's OK to oppress people who have committed no crime simply because you don't like their political opinions. As someone who holds a lot of controversial (and often unpopular) beliefs, this is pretty scary.

I find it quite telling that the mainstream forces in this country are so pathetic they can't even defeat the argument from the likes of the BNP. A lot of people in this country don't wish immigration to continue. Are you saying this is an outlawed position that cannot be represented in government?

[lokken]

I think that political conviction is irrelevant - if the persons involved actions are found to be discriminatory, then they should be removed from office.

Even if people violently disagree with the BNP, that doesn't mean they don't have a right to have a voice, up to the obvious limits of inciting racial hate etc. I think that such a move would probably fail through the human rights act, because it's a clear bar to freedom of expression, when it would be far more prudent to judge people on their actions rather than political conviction.

[mist]

discriminating againt people on the basis that they may, possibly, in the future discriminate against someone. pot, kettle?

-mist

[wu_trax]

ban party, problem solved (but then i live in a semi-facist country where such things are possible).

[pablissimo]

Looks like this backfired then

[Androme]

I'm probably mistaken here, but have any of you seen the undercover story on the BNP ages ago on the BBC? Their so called popular beliefs are made to be getting popular because they exploit the situation and using lies, create tension. When the tension is opposed by the opposite party, false allegations are made back etc. etc.

I am all in favour of banning the BNP - they are racist. Although I'm probably wrong here, supporting the BNP to me means you're in favour of racism, regardless of whether you're not racist at all - it indirectly means that to me. Sure, people are allowed Freedom of Expression, as long as it's not meant to create racial division, something the BNP are renowned for doing.

It's not up to the BNP to sort out the immigration problems - it's the governments - so the sooner they shut-up the better. Sure, they can persist, but they have racial hatred rooted within the organisation which is what angers so many people. It's the pure hatred full-stop. Considering I had to do extensive research on the way America tackles Mexicans/Cubans try to illegally immigrate over a certain stretch, I know there's a 'good' way, removed of evil, to tackle the problem.

Being half-cast (half-asian half-white) I'm kind of on both sides here. I've been to Manchester before, and I'm not hideous - far from it, but I've received a no. of stares that invoke a sense of "I'm not wanted here" - if I could video-tape it (if I ever went back there) I would. I can easily be mistaken for an immigrant, just looking at me. I can also be easily mistaken for a Muslim or a Turkish guy, just because of my complexion - none of which are true. It's the fact so many people are racist out there, based on presumptions that angers me - all mainly stem from my personal experiences.

For instance, Dante, you live in London yes? Ever head over to an area - ie: Loughton, and you will find it full of teenage (sometimes elders) whites whom of which, if you enter pass, the comments "paki" are often shouted out. You won't believe how many times I've been called that - although I'm not one myself, it's the fact people are demonstrating their racial hatred that upsets me, just because I look asian.

Most of you don't have the problems I face and I try my best to 'act mature' when I'm still only a kid but it's not easy.

Put yourselves in my shoes and you will actually 'personally' experience (as opposed to watching it say) the problems.

[Sarina_Joy]

Banning political opinions in protection of democracy.

That sounds like a really good and sensible idea.

After all democracy is only really meant for people we like and agree with.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy

Banning political opinions in protection of democracy.

That sounds like a really good and sensible idea.

After all democracy is only really meant for people we like and agree with.

primarily, as androme has stated, in protection of the people who make up that democracy.


NB: it's 13:37. cool.

[Sarina_Joy]

ah and BNP supporters arent part of that democracy right?

[Phang]

yes. but which is more important out of

1)their right to have an organised nazi party

2)androme's right to walk down a street without having 'paki' yelled at him?

[pablissimo]

Banning the BNP won't eliminate racism, so I'm not sure how objective two is exclusive from objective one.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Banning the BNP won't eliminate racism, so I'm not sure how objective two is exclusive from objective one.

no, but banning the BNP removes or at least hinders the claim to legitimacy of racist groups, and there's a knock-on effect there.

[queball]

Are there any BNP members in the Civil Service anyway?

[Sarina_Joy]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes. but which is more important out of

1)their right to have an organised nazi party

2)androme's right to walk down a street without having 'paki' yelled at him?

They are both important.

Its when they actively conflict that you try and find a solution rather than just ban them.

They're still gonna call him a paki or a wop or a kike , they just wont be able to say "yes I associate with other paki/wop/kike haters" what they will do is instead realise that the policital process in this country wont accomodate them in anyway and they will simply become more extreme in their ingnorance and hatred.

As I understand it the BNP dont actually wish a form of national socialism,mass murder or 2nd class citizenship.

[flapjack]

it seems simple tough

Racisme == illegal

BNP == racist

BNP == illegal

thus, ban the BNP. The dutchies have banned racist parties before and if a racist party comes up again, it'll be banned.

On the other hand, look at for example the LPF, it isn't racist, it's nationalist. Close to it, but they still hold a valid point and are legal, they've also got an opinion that many of us share.

Refugees should be allowed to stay, provided that they cannot safely stay where they came from. When their homeland becomes safe again, most of the refugees should return to their homes.

[Sarina_Joy]

Im not sure that we really have illegal thoughts and beliefs in this country, except for those that intended to do actual harm to people or property.

[Blixxard]

They are over hyped. The only reason they get coverage on t.v is because of there views. I can hardly see them forming her majesties government.
The way I see it. In the last elections England had. The European ones and councillor elections. The BNP did not do as well as they had done previously. Democracy prevails when everyone has the chance to voice there own opinions. If you don’t like the party then you don’t vote for them. Simple. I would never vote for BNP. They are too extreme for my liking.
Also there is a very thin line between what is racist and what isn't.

[Sunday8pm]

I can't wait till people have their teenage children dragged out their home and have BNP membership cards planted on them as they get taken away to the mental institution(jail) where they'll come back all drooly and free of emotion.

I can easily imagine that's where we are heading here kids.

(while I admit that condoning what the BNP represent is a giant faux pas, that to suddenly impose legal restrictions on your human rights if you associate yourself with said politics leaves it massively open to abuse, if you push bnp membership into hiding you are surely only recreating the Cold War hysteria that was in the America's during the 1960's where people were wildly accused and everyone got even more judgemental of their fellow man, Stamping out racism is important but let's not do it with the colours by number approach please.)

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Blixxard

Also there is a very thin line between what is racist and what isn't.

I would tend to disagree. I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between what's racist and not.

This isn't about banning political ideas. The political ideas have already been banned in the civil service + law. This is simply saying that BNP membership can now be used to verify someone as having racist beliefs. If it prevents racists getting into the civil service, go for it.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Blixxard

They are over hyped. The only reason they get coverage on t.v is because of there views. I can hardly see them forming her majesties government.
The way I see it. In the last elections England had. The European ones and councillor elections. The BNP did not do as well as they had done previously. Democracy prevails when everyone has the chance to voice there own opinions. If you don’t like the party then you don’t vote for them. Simple. I would never vote for BNP. They are too extreme for my liking.
Also there is a very thin line between what is racist and what isn't.

a million voters is quite a lot of voters you know.

[Pyr0 MK III]

I find it imensely hard to care about what anyone does to the BNP. They could execute the lot of them and we'd all be better off.

[flapjack]

Executing people is not the answer.

Well, it normally isn't the answer, it's not the answer here anyways.

bans on racisme should be strictly enforced, a party like the BNP that is heading so clearly towards racisme should simply be disbanded, as long as racists don't get the chance to unite and go public, they will remain to be only a minor problem. If you allow to come out into the public and spread their message, racisme will grow to be a major problem in a very short span of time

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes. but which is more important out of

1)their right to have an organised nazi party

2)androme's right to walk down a street without having 'paki' yelled at him?

This is ridiculous as they're not mutually exclusive but I'd say the right to free speech was more important than the right to not be insulted. Of course, if someone is making threats then that's criminal behaviour (in most contexts) and can be tackled under existing laws.

edit : Also, the BNP are horribly unpleasant but they are not, in any realistic fashion, a "NAZI" party. Aside from being a prime example of Godwins, comparing everything to nazi's is unhelpful and does not allow us to properly understand far-right politics.

Originally Posted by Androme2

Sure, people are allowed Freedom of Expression, as long as it's not meant to create racial division, something the BNP are renowned for doing.

So people have freedom of expression so long as they're not saying something that you don't agree with?

I'll give my favourite quote once again : If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.

edit : As a btw, Androme, do you support banning Muslim groups which preach intolerance of Jews or homosexuals?

[wu_trax]

i dont get why people belive in their 'freedom' almost religiously. its just an illusion anyway. you can easily make a few exceptions without turning the country into a dictatorship.

[Hicks]

Free speach and freedom of expression are great until nasty people take it too far, I can't believe they seriously think they can go around trying to think for themselves and worse still having thoughts that might offend other people, this makes me so mad, I'm going to write to my local MP post hast and demand all members of the BNP are deported and/or killed

[Phang]

Dante, you can't call Godwin's when dealing with an organisation with a security force called Combat-18. I'm sorry, but you don't get away with that. The BNP -are- a Nazi organisation.

And surely you can see the distinction between allowing free speech and letting people encourage the murder of or violence against 'undesirable elements'. And even if the party have never done such as opposed to individual members, they've sure as hell never condemned it.

Inidentally, would you count incitement as a threat?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i dont get why people belive in their 'freedom' almost religiously. its just an illusion anyway. you can easily make a few exceptions without turning the country into a dictatorship.

When you compromise on principles they cease to be principles. A right to free speech becomes--what--a privilege to speak? A license to speak? A permit to speak?

The first exception is always the hardest. After that, they get easier. :/

[Phang]

anyone who takes an absolutist approach to human rights is positively overflowing with bad ideas. The right to free speech should not be, and to a sane person is not, seen as even close to on an even footing with the right to life.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

When you compromise on principles they cease to be principles. A right to free speech becomes--what--a privilege to speak? A license to speak? A permit to speak?

The first exception is always the hardest. After that, they get easier. :/

why do you need an absolute freedom of speech? why allow people to tell crap? as i said before that doesnt automatically turn the country into a dictatorship with a thought-police. if those bans are checked properly i dont see the problem.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

Dante, you can't call Godwin's when dealing with an organisation with a security force called Combat-18.

Combat 18 aren't "the security force" of the BNP. Combat 18 were an off-shoot of the BNP some time ago when the BNP were a great deal more militant. But hey, why let facts get in the way of an "Outraged Middle Class Liberal Rant, from Tumbridge Wells", eh?

And surely you can see the distinction between allowing free speech and letting people encourage the murder of or violence against 'undesirable elements'.

Not really. I've encouraged murder and violence against undersirable elements (e.g. the state, the army, the government, etc).

And even if the party have never done such as opposed to individual members, they've sure as hell never condemned it.

Oh, so we've gone from "they're criminals" to "they encourage crime" to "they don't condemn crime". And to think I always though the slippery slope was a fallacy.

Inidentally, would you count incitement as a threat?

No. Not in most contexts.

anyone who takes an absolutist approach to human rights is positively overflowing with bad ideas.

I'd prefer to be "absolutist" in my attitude towards human rights than someone who is happy for the state to suspend said rights every time there is an opinion expressed you disagree with.

The right to free speech should not be, and to a sane person is not, seen as even close to on an even footing with the right to life.

Oh dear God, you cannot be serious. No-one claimed they were " on an even footing" (although I'd say fundamental rights are just that, and many are willing to die and kill for such freedoms). You're making a ridiculous argument informed almost entirely from mainstream hysterical press coverage (which aside from being riddled with logical errors, also is factually incorrect).

You could say the right to life is more important than the righ to free expression (not that that would mean anything at all) but that isn't the issue here.

[Sunday8pm]

ITT Dante will be the first victim of the Anti BNP member measures, our poor comrade will be framed.

[mist]

in order to stop people talking crap you first need to decide what crap is.

hypothetically, if the BNP were much larger and actually ruled the country would it be acceptable for them to ban those treasonously talking liberals who want foreigners about the place? i'm hoping not. therefore, how can the current incumberants justify enforcing their views on to the BNP?

i forget where i read it, but 'the essence of democracy is to advocate the will of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority'. that means all minorities, not just the disabled, ethnic minorities etc etc...

-mist

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

why do you need an absolute freedom of speech? why allow people to tell crap?

This kind of attitude is basically fine while you're in the majority view. What if your opinion is in the minority on some issues? What if the majority of Germans think free-market ideas are "crap" and so ban you from speaking about such things. Would that be OK? After all, why should they allow you to tell crap?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by mist

in order to stop people talking crap you first need to decide what crap is.

hypothetically, if the BNP were much larger and actually ruled the country would it be acceptable for them to ban those treasonously talking liberals who want foreigners about the place? i'm hoping not. therefore, how can the current incumberants justify enforcing their views on to the BNP?

most likely they would try that, extremists usually have that tendency. if they dont or those who attempt to ban them cant proof anything, then there shouldnt be a ban. BUT if a parties goals are to eliminate some human rights for minorities or their enemies i have no problem with banning them, because once they have power it will be too late to do anything about it.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Combat 18 aren't "the security force" of the BNP. Combat 18 were an off-shoot of the BNP some time ago when the BNP were a great deal more militant. But hey, why let facts get in the way of an "Outraged Middle Class Liberal Rant, from Tumbridge Wells", eh?

Fair point. but to imply a degree of detatchment between the National Front, the neo-Nazis, and the BNP beyond name and official party line is absurd. and the BNP that called in the goons with the swastikas against the miners is the same BNP winning seats in Dagenham today. Nick Griffin was a member at that time.The leopard hasn't changed it's spots.

Not really. I've encouraged murder and violence against undersirable elements (e.g. the state, the army, the government, etc).

Then I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on our hands. I'd say that the single worst politically-motivated act that can be commited is a murder, you apparently find it an acceptable implement.

Oh, so we've gone from "they're criminals" to "they encourage crime" to "they don't condemn crime". And to think I always though the slippery slope was a fallacy.

Heh. The BNP is comprised of criminal individuals, who as organs of the party encourage crime, and as a collective political party fail to comment.

No. Not in most contexts.

Again, a major disagreement. Well, a poorly worded question in fact, but I assume your answer carries over to a better worded 'do you consider incitement to be something to be dealt with in the same manner as a threat' question. In which case, I fail to see how attempting to have someone killed can be particularly seperated out.

I'd prefer to be "absolutist" in my attitude towards human rights than someone who is happy for the state to suspend said rights every time there is an opinion expressed you disagree with.

I don't give a **** what people believe. What I care about is the tendency for these beliefs to metamorphose into serious violations of other, more (imo) significant human rights.

Oh dear God, you cannot be serious. No-one claimed they were " on an even footing" (although I'd say fundamental rights are just that, and many are willing to die and kill for such freedoms). You're making a ridiculous argument informed almost entirely from mainstream hysterical press coverage (which aside from being riddled with logical errors, also is factually incorrect).

My apologies there. I was presuming you did place rights on an equal footing (which is true but even so) and I also brought in a point based on a hypothetical which I've used in discussions outside the forum but not here thus removing the context and oh god but anyway. My argument there was rooted in the hypothetical question 'If Nick Griffin gave a speech in Bradford encouraging violence against Pakistanis, and by the next morninga few dozen Pakistanis had been killed in firebombings or by lynch mobs, should the state have grounds to take action against Nick Griffin?'.
Anyway, that was the backdrop to the original statement so if it makes more sense now hooray.

You could say the right to life is more important than the right to free expression (not that that would mean anything at all) but that isn't the issue here.

I'd disagree, I'd say it's at the heart of the issue - if exercising free speech is putting lives in danger then I believe it has to come second and would advocate a suspension of the right to free speech insofar as it saves lives.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This kind of attitude is basically fine while you're in the majority view. What if your opinion is in the minority on some issues? What if the majority of Germans think free-market ideas are "crap" and so ban you from speaking about such things. Would that be OK? After all, why should they allow you to tell crap?

there it is again. if you ban one thing you freedom-fanatics always assume that would automatically mean that all freedom of speech is gone.

[Ninja_spammer]

If you place restrictions on a freedom.....its no longer a freedom as it no has limits and boundries.

By the way 'freedom fanatic' is the best insult I have ever heard.......at least you seem to be trying to use it as an insult.

[wu_trax]

if some extremist party (lets say some ultra-nationalists who dont give a damn about freedom of speech and want to kill / deport all foreigners) would somehow win your next election and slowly try to turn your country into a 1984 political system, what would you do?

[JonnyBGood]

Not live in a ridiculous country which allows people to vote over issues such as freedom of speech. Also they are nowhere near winning the next election. In fact I'm probably closer to winning the next election and I don't even live in Britain.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Not live in a ridiculous country which allows people to vote over issues such as freedom of speech. Also they are nowhere near winning the next election. In fact I'm probably closer to winning the next election and I don't even live in Britain.

thats not the point. lets just assume some 'evil' party would win the election so that it would seem to be the 'will of the people' to get rid of freedom of speech and the whole stuff. then what?
maybe i dont have enough faith in the human race, but i really thing that all it takes is someone who is good at public speeches and presents some really simple solutions.

[JonnyBGood]

The will of the people should not override the rights of individuals. I don't care what everyone else on the planet thinks. That's the entire point of human rights.

[LHC]

This is stupid. "Defeat racism, ban the BNP" is so stupid I don't believe it. It doesn't work like that, or even similar to that. Racism has existed for centuries, and I doubt the BNP has increased the amount of racism. Also, "Increase our freedom, outlaw free speech" is a pretty stupid idea.

I actually know a muslim of pakistani descent that supports the BNP. He hates immigrants and believes the "stealing our jobs" bullshit, which is pretty funny.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The will of the people should not override the rights of individuals. I don't care what everyone else on the planet thinks. That's the entire point of human rights.

and yet such a party could win your elections, forcing you either into a civil war or to leave the country. its stupid not to ban such parties (ofc, you could always adjust your political system in a way, so that only the major parties have any chance of winning and thus keep up the illusion of freedom)

[Insane. Badger]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and yet such a party could win your elections, forcing you either into a civil war or to leave the country. its stupid not to ban such parties (ofc, you could always adjust your political system in a way, so that only the major parties have any chance of winning and thus keep up the illusion of freedom)

It's far more likely you'll be hit by a car tomorrow, shall we ban cars or roads as well?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Insane. Badger

It's far more likely you'll be hit by a car tomorrow, shall we ban cars or roads as well?

didnt know you are still around
hi , we should discuss the eu some time.

[Nadval]

Why are people going on about this great loss of freedom of speech? You're nearly 30 years late on that one, you need to go back to when the Race discrimination act was passed. No freedoms are being taken away by doing this. If you were racist, you already weren't allowed in the civil service, so that's not what we should be discussing. The question that needs to be asked is "Is being a member of the BNP proof of being racist", I think it is.

As for freedom of speech. I would bet money on Dante being white - maybe if he goes somewhere where white people are a minority with relatively very little power within the country, and with no laws protecting minorities from racial prejudice, he will understand the legitimacy of such laws. It is a necassary safeguard to ban inciting hatred/discrimination against racial groups. Would you say that swearing at police officers being illegal is breaching freedom of speech? Or is it simply an attempt to maintain an image of respect for law enforcers?

If you believe in absolute freedom of speech, meaning you can't be arrested or prosecuted for anything you say, then would 'No Jews' outside shop windows be acceptable? or 'Jews unwelcome' above park entrances? A law against race descrimination and inciting racial hatred is a necassary safeguard in our constitution to prevent a Nazi regime from ever springing up, and now seems as appropriate a time as any to use it.

[Insane. Badger]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

didnt know you are still around
hi , we should discuss the eu some time.

I could try and blame this ban on the BNP on the EU/Germany if you like?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and yet such a party could win your elections, forcing you either into a civil war or to leave the country. its stupid not to ban such parties (ofc, you could always adjust your political system in a way, so that only the major parties have any chance of winning and thus keep up the illusion of freedom)

So could a party supporting mass suicide. However it's not even remotely likely.

In response to your last line have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The will of the people should not override the rights of individuals. I don't care what everyone else on the planet thinks. That's the entire point of human rights.

but the sixty-four thousand dollar question is this: SHOULD HUMAN RIGHTS BE SUSPENDED TO STOP OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED?

and in this case, should the right to free speech of nazi thugs (not that it makes a difference but even so) be more important than the rights to safety, legal protection and indeed life of blacks, non-christians, gays, jews, criminals, gypsies and women? Because even if racism will always exist, letting the BNP become a serious party - and let's not beat about the bush, 5% of the vote is massive for an extremist group and indeed for a British political group other than Lib/Lab/Con. so far it's only converted to half a dozen council seats but - and mock if you wish, but give due consideration - the Nazis capitalised on the anti-Semitism and economic crippling of 1932 just as they could capitalised on the xenophobia, Islamophobia and rising taxes of, say, 2010.

Just because they aren't contenders for government now doesn't mean they never will be, and doesn't mean they aren't on the rise. It's far better to tread on them from above now than to suffer under them later.

And if you want to dismiss that line of reasoning, how about the right not to be harassed? Racism would exist without the BNP but there are enough areas where the BNP or their sister groups are exacerbating it no end. Oldham and the like.