Lee Barnes - a legend in his own lunchtime

Lee Barnes, the BNP's legal beagle, appears to be off the medication again. You can always tell - he tends to go off his rocker quickly and dramatically and write the most appalling tosh on his blog. And yes, it's inclined to be worse than the usual rubbish he writes. Difficult to believe, I know.

On this occasion, the ever-entertaining Barnes is telling the BNP how it can amend the party's constitution to get around the anti-racist legislation that is forcing it, thanks to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to become open to people of any colour or origin - like anyone with a brain would want to join that bunch of golly-burners anyway.

Having realised that it would cost a fortune to fight the current case, Nick Griffin has thrown the question of whether to change the rules or fight in court open to the membership of the party for discussion. It's a meaningless debate because the party has no option, though for Griffin there is one very clear and personal reason why he would prefer capitulation. He doesn't want the members to fight because that will involve interminable fund-raising and any funds that are raised should go into his pocket, or possibly into the pocket of Griffin's chum, Jim Dowson, not be frivolously spent on barristers for a case the BNP is destined to lose.

The further - and far more interesting question - is HOW the BNP's constitution is to be changed to make allowance for the fact that it could have people joining who are not exactly welcome, and who would be far from welcome at many meetings/events. And it is this latter problem that the lunatic Barnes has, he believes, solved.

The first of his solutions is to redefine the word 'white' to something akin to the way the word 'black' is used by the Black Police Officer's Association. And once again, almost instantly, he demonstrates precisely why he is not a practising solicitor or barrister - he simply doesn't know the law. As he should know but apparently doesn't, the rules are different for political parties as opposed to unincorporated associations. The latter are allowed to be a good deal more specific regarding the nature of their membership as, for example, the Black Police Officer's Association, because they operate in a distinctly different way. It's worth remembering that the BPOA is, generally speaking, a support network for BME officers (though open to any officer to join) within an overwhelmingly white and sometimes hostile organisation, but the aims of the association may make its more extensive role clearer.

'2.1 The objects of the National Black police Association are to promote good race relations and equality of opportunity within the police services of the United Kingdom and the wider community.

2.2 In pursuance of Paragraph 2.1, the aim shall be achieved by:

(1) Representing the views of all representative members of Constituted Black Police Associations (herein known as BPA's) who are affiliated to the NBPA.

(2) Providing a support to local BPA

(3) Influencing the direction of policies nationally in line with equality issues and antidiscrimination policies in the Police Service and wider Criminal Justice System.

(4) Advising, consulting and intervening on matters of racism nationally which have a negative impact on communities.

(5) Working towards improving relationships between the Police and the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities within the United Kingdom and internationally when appropriate.

(6) Working towards improving recruitment, retention and progression of officers and police staff members within the Police Service.

(7) Assisting the police service in the development of new and existing policies, impacting on BME communities.

(8) Establishing relationships and working with other groups and individuals, whose aims are compatible with or supportive of the NBPA.'

Admirable aims and, more to the point, societally inclusive, which is what the BNP is turning on its head when it shouts about the BPOA being as racist as itself. But really, it's when Barnes seeks to exclude any problematical new members (meaning non-white) that his hypocrisy and insanity shine through like twin rays of sunlight on a cloudy day. Here's his contribution to the debate:

'We impose a five year probationary membership policy where you only get full membership after 5 years continuous membership. We allow the existing members to retain their existing full membership rights, but all new members of all races who seek to join will face a five year probationary period as Associate Members before they are allowed to claim Full Membership Status.

This will ensure that new Associate Members do not have voting rights until they have been a member for five years, and that they will have to pay their membership fees for five years. Then once they have become Full members they then have to wait two years to become a Voting Member.'

A seven-year apprenticeship seems a tad excessive. As far as I know, the other parties - the real political parties whose politics do not revolve solely around race - have a short probationary period, if they have any at all. It's ludicrous to imagine that someone would join the BNP and sit around waiting to be able to vote on party policy for a substantial percentage of the average life span, particularly when such party luminaries as the omnipresent white-supremacist Arthur Kemp and Bonkers Barnes himself appear to dictate policy but have only themselves been party members for less than a year. One rule for them...

Barnes goes on;

'Faced with the reality that they will be forced to fund the BNP for five years before they can be in a position to accrue any full membership rights means we ensure that no one of bad faith will join.

Those that do wish to pay membership fees for five years and then when they are Full Members try and cause problems in the party can be removed on any grounds we wish - other than racial grounds of skin colour grounds etc - and that way we avoid any legal liabities when they are kicked out.'

As Barnes should be aware, that again is not the case. Didn't the founder of the BNP, John Tyndall, sue the party after being wrongfully expelled by the new leader Nick Griffin and his cabal of yes-men? There's no need to answer that. Yes, he did.

As usual, Barnes gets carried away with his own eloquence, doubtless imagining himself striding up and down the courtroom, bewigged and begowned, lecturing the judge on the technicalities and intricacies of the law a la Horace Rumpole, forgetting that his entire knowledge of law involves shouting as loud and as often as he can and not listening to anyone except his own brilliant self. And here he goes again:

'All Associate members and Full Members that join the BNP agree not to invoke, utilise, or seek to base any legal actions upon in regard to any of the following legislation or legal provisions, or any associated case law claims in the civil courts, against any another party members, officers of the party, agents of the party or against the Party itself. Breach of this term at any time during Associate Membership and Full Membership of the party will result in the immediate termination of membership and expulsion from the Party with no right of appeal to any internal party disciplinary review proceedings ;

the Race Relations Act 1976 and all amendents and case law;
the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003;
the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003;
the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006;
the Equality Act 2006 ;
the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
the Equality Bill ( or Act when passed into law ) 2009.
The Human Rights Act 1998
The ECHR and case law
EU laws and case law

This is not an exhaustive list. Any other UK, European or International laws or legislation that the Party Chairman, in consultation with the Advisory Council, believes that damage, or could damage, the internal functions and political mission of the BNP or that may threaten the Health and Safety of members of the British National Party may be added to the list.'

The idea that any organisation can circumvent the law purely on its own say-so is madness. Whether it likes it or not, the BNP is obliged, as are the rest of us, to stay within the law as enacted by Parliament or the EU, and no amount of disclaimers can make a single iota of difference to that fact. I'd go so far as to suggest that an attempt to discard the laws that don't suit the party is unlawful itself and that if this crap makes it into the constitution of the BNP, it will a fine opportunity for an extended romp around the courts at great expense to the party.

'Associate Membership status will not include a right to attend party meetings, party functions or party events such as the RWB unless invited by an duly appointed officer of the party.'

Exclusivity again, though one that, if based on race, should be fairly easy to prosecute. But there is more (and better) to come.

'It will be the duty of appointed organisers to screen all new Associate Members and ensure that they are bona fide applicants for membership of the party. Those Associate Members that any organiser feels are not bona fide applicants for membership will be notified to head office and their activities monitored. After five years of membership if they have not caused the party any problems then all records on their possible problem status will be destroyed once they become Full Members of the party.'

Don't you love that phrase 'their activities monitored'? How, exactly? Will we see the BNP checking new member's emails, as they did when they illegally opened emails belonging to Sadie Graham following their gaining entry to her home by deception? Or perhaps by recording private telephone conversations, as they did those between Sadie Graham and Kenny Smith at the time of the December 2007 rebellion? All outrageously illegal of course and no doubt inspired by the former South African spook Arthur Kemp and his chums.

One final point is raised that Bonkers obviously considers worth a mention:

'Associate Members will be required to disclose previous political memberships, affiliation or membership of the following organisations classified as hostile to the BNP

Operation Black Vote
The Labour Party
Conservative Party
UKIP
Socialist Workers Party
Anti-Fascist Action
Searchlight
Hope Not Hate
Unite Against Fascism
The Liberal Democrats
The Green Party'

Strange that there is no mention of the Ku Kux Klan, the British People's Party, the nazi Stormfront forum or any similar groupings of hardcore nazis. But Barnes ends this nonsenical drivel with a phrase that seems to show his arrogance up in all its glory.

'This should do the job nicely I believe.'

It should. As long as one ignores the illegality of nine-tenths of the proposals and the sheer lunacy of the rest.