Vote No To The BNP

Fresh from its disastrous showing at the ballot box on 6 May, the British National party now faces financial turmoil with its assets threatened by court action. The high court is to decide whether Nick Griffin and two other BNP officials should face contempt of court proceedings in which their assets could be confiscated under a “writ of sequestration”. The assets include Griffin’s MEP salary, investments and pensions and any property that they might own. The case shows that no political party is above the law.

The contempt proceedings were brought by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) after the BNP was accused of failing to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution. The BNP had been in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976 by admitting only white people to the party, but it revised its constitution in February to say it would allow people of any descent or origin to join, but only if the individual “agrees with or supports or does not oppose or does not disagree with the principles of our party”.

However, the principles of the party in this amended constitution are still in terms of promoting indigenous over non-indigenous interests, including maintaining the “integrity of the indigenous British” and “restoring and maintaining” the indigenous British as “an overwhelming majority” (indigenous being defined by those that settled in these islands between 11500BC and 6 July 1189).

It is not difficult to see how this is contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976, because by signing up to the principles, any non-indigenous member would have to give up their racial and cultural identity. The BNP has also not changed its rule preventing new members from attending any party meeting until they have been interviewed by two BNP officials. A court in March ruled that this was intimidatory and directed against non-indigenous applicants.

If the high court rules that the BNP is in breach of the March order and gives permission to the EHRC to issue the writ, then it will appoint four commissioners. Two to three of the commissioners will be “authorised and commanded” to take possession of the BNP’s assets. These assets will be kept in the hands of the commissioners until the BNP complies with the order to make its constitution free of racial discrimination.

Not only would this be a bitter pill for the BNP to swallow ideologically, it would also be financially punitive. A commissioner can cost up to £1,000 a day, and if the BNP has its assets confiscated, it will cost them up to £3,000 a day for those assets to be held. The BNP faces a period of financial turmoil.

It would certainly seem that the fall out from the recent taking down of the British National Party (BNP) website is producing the expected twists and turns. Simon Bennett the now former BNP Webmaster has posted a statement via the Nationalists Online Forum and as follows:

“Right. Just got the confirmation that Griffin’s injunction has been discharged completely. His attempt of a gagging order has failed miserably. I will publish the entire evidence of the facts that led to this situation later today or this evening.”

To take out this action would have cost the BNP £3000 of the memberships money, as this is the standard fee to take out such a court action and regardless of whether Nick Griffin and the BNP intended to follow it up or not they are still liable for that base cost of £3000.

It would seem that the BNP attempted to use the court action as some scare tactic to stop Simon Bennett going public in any way with any information in may have. This tactic clearly seems to have failed as Simon Bennett had no intention of backing down, to which Nick Griffin and the BNP have stopped the legal action against him.

What we have to question here is did Nick Griffin and the BNP have any case at all against Simon Bennett in the first place? by stopping the court action we would clearly assume that they had nothing they could use against Simon Bennett in court. The only thing to come out of this is YET ANOTHER legal bill for the BNP membership to cough up for adding another £3000 of their donations that is simply being wasted paying the lawyers bills.

It certainly seems if you take a few days off things just keep on getting funnier in the world of the British National Party (BNP), the BNP Leader Nick Griffin has had his personal EU website deleted by the now ex-webmaster Simon Bennett.

It would certainly certainly seem that Simon Bennett is going all out to prove his point, Nick Griffin and the BNP had also launched a court case against Simon Bennett that was meant to take place last Thursday but according to various sources this has now been delayed due to Nick Griffin lack of evidence to support his case against Simon Bennett.

It would also seem that Nick Griffin and the BNP have also attempted to settle the case out of court or even to drop the case which Simon Bennett has refused to do, this is going to turn into another session of long running legal battles that the BNP can ill afford, remembering the Unilever/Marmite case is also due to hit the courts again soon.

Nick Griffin could be in in contempt of court for allegedly breaching court order to amend party rules

The British National party faces the prospect of renewed legal action from the government’s equalities watchdog over allegations that it has failed to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution. The court case could potentially see the BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, jailed or fined for contempt of court, or see party assets seized, lawyers believe.

It caps a miserable couple of weeks for the BNP. Griffin came third in the parliamentary vote for Barking, a constituency the BNP had targeted heavily, while his party lost all 12 of its seats on Barking and Dagenham council. That followed a disastrous election campaign in which the BNP website was taken down by its designer, the party’s publicity director was arrested on suspicion of threatening to kill Griffin and a London candidate was caught on camera fighting in the street with a group of Asian teenagers.

The BNP constitution was challenged in court last year by the government’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In March, Judge Paul Collins ruled that even after the BNP lifted a direct ban on non-white members, the revised document was indirectly discriminatory because it required applicants to oppose “any form of integration or assimilation of … the indigenous British”, something the EHRC argued could not be endorsed by those in mixed-race relationships.

The constitution additionally required new members to submit to a two-hour vetting visit at their home by a pair of BNP officials, a clause Collins ruled could be seen as intimidating for non-white applicants. He ordered both offending sections be removed.

Following the ruling, Griffin redrafted the BNP constitution, something the party’s rules allow him to do without consulting members. However, copies of the new version – officially known as draft 12.2 – show that both clauses have not been removed but moved and slightly amended. The home interview clause returns in near-identical wording as the “annual visit criteria”, without which new members cannot attend meetings or vote on party matters.

“This seems like a slightly hapless attempt to get round the injunction by moving the offending section to a different part of the constitution,” said Paul Epstein QC from Cloisters Chambers in London, a specialist in discrimination law.

“There seems to be no doubt that what they have done goes against the spirit of Judge Collins’s ruling at the very least. They’re taking a real risk of being found in contempt of court. This is particularly the case for Griffin, given this role he has in changing the constitution.”

The section relating to the “indigenous British” remains in the new constitution, under the heading “Temporary amendment”. Gavin Millar QC, a specialist in election and discrimination law from Doughty Street chambers, said this appeared to breach the court decision. “The ruling made it quite clear that the reference to ‘indigenous British’ was discriminatory and had to be removed but the BNP has included it, saying it is only being temporarily removed pending a successful appeal, at which point it will be reinstated. This is a clear breach,” he said.

The home visit clause had been slightly reworded but “it is in substance the same”, he said, adding: “The approach they have taken is both a civil and criminal breach of the order and I think in the end, unless the courts or the commission give up, which I don’t think they will, the BNP and Griffin will in the end face contempt proceedings and possible imprisonment.”

Any EHRC action will have to wait until a government is formed, as until then its activities remain constrained by Cabinet Office guidelines on the behaviour of public bodies during election campaigns. An EHRC spokesman said: “At the time of the court ruling, we said that the commission would monitor the BNP’s compliance with the ruling. We are currently looking into this matter.”

The EHRC is understood to have written to the BNP outlining its concerns about the new constitution and is awaiting a reply. The BNP did not respond to a request for comment.