Griffin throws in the towel

Nick Griffin - fighting a losing battle

Despite all the hysterical rhetoric that it was going to fight the Equality and Human Rights Commission all the way, when push came to shove the British National Party decided to play for time when the case against it came on at London County Court.

The EHCR alleges that the BNP’s “whites only” membership policy is in breach of the Race Relations Act.

At the last moment the BNP changed solicitors, and barrister Jonathan O’Mahony received instructions only the night before the case was due to be heard on September 2nd, forcing Judge Paul Collins to grant an adjournment until October 15th.

The judge told the BNP that it must bear the costs of the delay, which may cost the cash-strapped party thousands of pounds.

The reason for the BNP’s costly delaying tactics at first seemed inexplicable, but suspicions deepened today that Nick Griffin intends to withdraw from a case the BNP has very little chance of winning – in fact there have been suspicions all along in some quarters of the BNP and even the anti-fascist movement that Griffin did not wish to fight the case but was forced to do so due to strength of feeling among his members.

This evening Griffin warned the BNP that the final cost of fighting the EHRC case could be more than a million pounds, and that in any case the forthcoming Equality Bill will “simply and unavoidably ban any political party from discriminating on grounds of ethnicity”.

Disingenuously, a post on the BNP’s website, clearly authored by Griffin, then says: “The entire court case is therefore pointless even from the CEHR’s position, and is clearly designed only to bleed the party of its funding.”

What he means is that the court case is pointless from the BNP’s position.

The post continued to back-pedal, Griffin acknowledging that the BNP constitution will have to be rewritten to comply with the law, which per se means that the party will have to accept non-whites into its membership, should any wish to apply.

Couching what amounts to surrender in a form designed to make the poison pill easier to swallow, Griffin said: “Adapt or die is the only decision left to make, for failure to adapt would lead either to our being bled white through the courts or crushed by new criminal laws. Party unity is priceless, because a party of brothers standing shoulder to shoulder can be persecuted, but it can never be beaten or broken.”

Clearly signalling an intent not to contest the EHRC case further, Griffin continues: “We will be going into legal battle against Trevor Phillips and the rest of the ‘curs’, but it will be fought on ground that we choose, at the time that we appoint, and with our maximum strength directed against their weakest point.”

Cynics have pointed out that Griffin tested the waters on changing the BNP constitution to admit non-whites several years ago, long before any threat of legal action was mooted. Accusations were levelled that Griffin, knowing that the BNP would never take power, and seeing the party, in his own words, as “a business”, was more concerned with preserving the lucrative “business” by opening up its membership to non-whites than he was with upholding the BNP’s core beliefs.

We can’t comment on that, but we do predict that Griffin’s surrender will lead to serious internal ructions within the BNP. In late August hardline racists centred around the Jackson4leader dissident group held a meeting in the Midlands to discuss a leadership challenge to unseat Griffin, and already BNP members are making comments on the internet that they will leave the party rather than accept ethnic minority members. Needless to say, the heavily moderated main party website is filled with comments of a grudging “so be it” variety, many of them seeming to have been posted by the site’s admin under different names to shore up the Griffinite position.

We at Norfolk Unity must admit that at first we believed the EHRC case to have been a hastily cobbled together panic measure, reacting to the election of two BNP MEP’s in June. We still believe that, and continue to have little faith in an organisation that has had years to tackle the BNP – but if the self-surrender of the BNP leads to the demise of organised racism in Great Britain, well, we can live with that.

Norfolk Unity

BNP in court over membership rules

The BNP: up in court today for its whites-only membership rule

A legal action against the British National Party about ethnic restrictions on its membership is due in court.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued county court proceedings against the far-right party on August 24 after voicing concerns in June about its constitution and membership criteria. The party's membership criteria appeared to be restricted to those within certain ethnic groups and to white people, according to the EHRC.

The BNP responded by saying that it intended to clarify the word "white" on its website, but the Commission said it believed the party will continue to discriminate against potential or actual members on racial grounds.

"The BNP's membership criteria appear to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regards as particular "ethnic groups" and those whose skin colour is white. This exclusion is contrary to the Race Relations Act.

"The Commission believes the BNP's constitution and membership criteria are discriminatory and, further, that the continued publication of them on the BNP website is unlawful. It has therefore issued county court proceedings against party leader Nick Griffin and two other officials," said the Commission in a statement.

John Wadham, legal director at the Equality and Human Rights Commission said: "The BNP has said that it is not willing to amend its membership criteria which we believe are discriminatory and unlawful.

"The Commission has a statutory duty to use our regulatory powers to enforce compliance with the law, so we have today issued county court proceedings against the BNP. However, the party still has an opportunity to resolve this quickly by giving the undertaking on its membership criteria that the Commission requires."

Southport Visitor

BNP and EHRC in acronym-wrestling competition

So, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has suddenly become very active on on the great picnic blanket that is the British constitution - and, yes, I do use the term advisedly - by rather hilariously asking the British National Party (BNP) to comply with equality laws or face an application for a legal injunction that would force it to.

I phone the EHRC determined to discover whether the BNP has inadvertently - some might say ironically - fallen victim to some piece of European legislation or other, following its recent success in the European parliamentary elections?

“No, it’s all British law as far as I’m aware,” a charming woman called Krista from the press office tells me. So far, so “Indigenously Caucasian” as the BNP’s constitution would have it. I’m not exactly sure who was involved in creating the 1976 Race Relations Act, on which the EHRC is relying, but my colleague Philip Johnston tells me that it was very likely to have been drafted entirely by a bunch of white people in the government and civil service of the time. So, with any luck, no problem there for Mr Griffin and his cohorts.

The question arises, then, where exactly does the EHRC’s problem lie and what kind of teeth would this injunction have? “It’s the BNP’s constitution,” Krista tells me, drawing my attention to section two on page four, which refers to membership and, interestingly, eleven alleged racial groupings from which it would specifically welcome members. I note that there are plenty of Celts in there, remember being told once that the Irish language had more in common with Sanskrit than anything else, then also remember that I received this information in a pub and file it mentally under “to do”.

“You have to be a member of the BNP to be an employee of the party and membership is restricted to these ethnic groups,” Krista explains. “We think that’s illegal.” A vague memory also wafts back at this point that there is no scientific way of distinguishing the DNA of one ethnic group from any other and I wonder how the BNP would ultimately support its “ethnicity” rules in court.

But even if its constitution is changed, I ask Krista, what’s to stop the BNP doing what everybody else does - employing whomsoever they want and then claiming that they were the best person for the job when challenged? And anyway, what kind of a black or Asian person would want to go and work for the BNP? There was a pause. “Yes, that’s a good point,” Krista admits.

“Something else that has been raised is that it’s possible that the BNP would claim that it is exempt from this legislation because it’s an association and section 26 of the act exempts associations. But we’ve already taken legal advice on this and have been told that a political party cannot qualify as an association, since instead of acting on behalf of its members, a political party is supposed to act on behalf of the community at large.”

The spectre of a million claims that the BNP turned anti-fascists down for jobs heaves into view and I’m reminded at this point of what happened to the Daily Mail’s poll about gipsies last week.

Still, it should be a go-er.

Telegraph

BNP links to immigration service staff

After nearly 300 allegations of brutality and racist abuse, official inquiry is launched

An official investigation has been launched after two immigration service staff working with asylum-seekers were found to have links to the British National Party, The Independent has learnt.

One guard employed to look after asylum-seekers at a detention centre has been forced to resign after his name was found on a membership list of the BNP. Another man has been suspended while his employer investigates alleged links to the same far-right organisation.

Both cases raise serious concerns about racism within the immigration system, where membership of extreme political groups has long been suspected. Over the past two years The Independent has helped reveal nearly 300 allegations of brutality, including 38 claims of racism, made by asylum-seekers about private security and immigration staff. Some of the allegations included abusive and racist language, in which refugees fleeing persecution were referred to as "monkeys" or told to "go back to their own countries".

The only two services where membership of the BNP can be grounds for dismissal are the police force and the Prison Service.

In the case of the immigration service, everyone working in immigration removal centres or in the guarding or removal of asylum-seekers must sign a declaration making clear that they are not members of the BNP, Combat 18 or the National Front. Those who are found to belong to any group that promotes racism will lose their accreditation to work in the immigration system.

Last night, the UK Border Agency said it "will not tolerate racist behaviour by individuals working in immigration removal centres. All allegations are investigated and the UKBA can revoke an individual's accreditation to work for the agency or have any contact with detainees."

It is understood that a security guard resigned after a list of BNP members was leaked to the media last year. In the case of the suspended guard, the investigation is being conducted by the private contractor. During his suspension, the man will not be able to work with refugees or enter any immigration building.

BNP policy on immigration stipulates: "We will also clamp down on the flood of 'asylum-seekers', all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries."

Last month the Home Office received another report, this time from its own complaints watchdog, that raised serious concerns about the treatment of complaints of racism made by asylum-seekers, many of which had been miscategorised as "poor service" complaints. The report, written by the Home Office's Complaints Audit Committee (CAC), and seen by The Independent, said senior officials had "joined us in voicing concern that serious complaints such as allegations of assault aggravated by racism have been handled as service delivery complaints and as a consequence have not been properly managed".

The Labour MP Diane Abbott said last night: "If it is true that staff employed to work with asylum-seekers and immigrants are members of the BNP then it is yet another sign that the Home Office are allowing for the mistreatment of immigrants in this country. For years, campaign groups and my colleagues and I have been pointing out that hiring private contractors to work as immigration guards is a bad idea. It seems we will now have more proof of this. People who come to this country deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect that is afforded to citizens."

A spokesperson for Medical Justice, which helped compile a dossier of nearly 300 complaints of alleged abuse, said: "We hear detainees complain about racism on an almost daily basis and it's virtually unheard of for a complaint to be upheld. The sheer volume of detainees complaining suggests among certain immigration guards there seems to be a canteen culture of racism which can flourish if left unchecked. Detainees feel dehumanised."

In its report, the CAC further warned: "Complaints of racism have caused us concern, as failures to report and investigate them fully may leave the UK Border Agency liable to prosecution under the Race Relations Act and to other anti-discrimination legislation... We have learnt of special problems in the detention estate, where complaints forms have a tick-box marked 'racism' and where officials believe that racism has been widely used as an inappropriate add-on to service delivery complaints, such as a detainee claiming that he had been served cold food because of his ethnic origin.

"We have reservations about the accuracy of this view in light of Sir William MacPherson's definition of a racist incident as 'any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person'. As we do not routinely audit service delivery complaints, we cannot calculate the extent of alleged misuse of the term 'racist'."

The CAC said the Home Office should have supplied all misconduct complaints alleging racism. "We received only four complaints of racism from Colnbrook [detention centre, near Heathrow Airport] in 2007. This would appear to be a low number of potential complaints according to evidence collected by the HMIP [prison inspectorate] team, whose survey yielded the information that 18 per cent of detainees said they had been victimised by staff on the basis of their nationality and 15 per cent said they had been victimised on the basis of their ethnic or cultural origin."

Independent

Arsenal fans to sue club over anti-Semitic chanting

Three Arsenal season ticket holders have instructed human rights lawyers to bring a legal challenge against their own club over what they allege is racist chanting in the new Emirates Stadium.

In a letter sent to the Arsenal chairman, the fans – a Jew, a Muslim and a Christian – claim that the use of the anti-Semitic words "Yids" or "Yiddos" in reference to players and fans from Tottenham Hotspur amounts to a breach of Race Relations Act.

Their solicitor, Lawrence Davies, a leading human rights lawyer at the London law firm Equal Justice, has asked the club to take immediate action to stamp out all racist chanting at the club.

Mr Davies's letter, sent this week to Peter Hill-Wood, makes it clear that the season-ticket holders can sue the club for breach of contract as Arsenal has a written policy of taking firm action against racist behaviour in the stadium.

Arsenal fans argue that the use of the words "Yids" and "Yiddos" in reference to their north London rivals is not racist but simply directed at the club's Jewish history and point out that Tottenham fans even refer to themselves as the "Yid Army". But Mr Davies says this does not stop the language from being offensive and anti-Semitic.

Mr Davies says in his letter: "The test in law is whether the language concerned causes offence to the person concerned. Our five clients are all Arsenal supporters and three are season-ticket holders. The season-ticket holders include a Jewish member and a Muslim member. They have all felt offended."

He claims that by taking no action, the club would appear to be in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976 in the provision of a service or permitting harassment to occur without challenge.

His letter adds: "The season-ticket holders have a contractual relationship with the club. The contract states that fans exhibiting racist behaviour will have their contracts terminated and will be ejected form a particular match. None of the 'Yid' chanters have been challenged."

Mr Davies and his clients readily acknowledge that work has been done to combat racism in recent years.

But he adds: "It is simply not sufficient to state in the match-day programme that the club is against racism ... There needs to be an approach to tackle racism which educates fans on anti-racist behaviour." The fans have also asked their lawyer to write to Herman Ousely, the chairman of Let's Kick Racism Out Of Football, and Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The legal challenge comes after Arsenal signed a £350,000 sponsorship deal with the Israeli tourism ministry in which images of players are used to promote the country as an ideal tourism destination.

It gives Arsenal strong ties with both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Arsenal's new stadium carries the name of the Emirates airline, owned by the United Arab Emirates government, which has no diplomatic relations with Israel.

An Arsenal spokesman said: "Arsenal Football Club will not tolerate foul language and racist chanting at Emirates Stadium. Whether Arsenal supporters or visiting fans are responsible, we will take action – through the courts if necessary – to stamp out this unacceptable behaviour. Where evidence exists (including video evidence), prosecutions will follow."

Independent