Nick Griffin has welcomed the ruling that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) must pay the British National Party’s court costs in full as a “victory for freedom”.
“It is a massive victory for the British National Party and freedom and a crushing blow for the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Trevor Phillips' PC bullies,” he said.
Mr Griffin’s comments follow the High Court judgement ruling that the EHRC must pay all the costs incurred by him, Simon Darby and Tanya Lumby during their brave defence against the EHRC’s attempts to seize the Party's assets and throw the defendants into prison.
The ruling of Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Mr Justice Ramsey is a further crushing defeat for the Commission and a personal humiliation for Trevor Phillips and Simon Woolley, who at the start of proceedings boasted on TV that they were going to close the British National Party down.
"Thanks to the staunch generosity of so many of our members and supporters and the magnificent efforts of our legal team, their attack on democracy and freedom failed utterly," said Mr Griffin.
"The British National Party is still very much alive and kicking. We've built up a legal team which can go head to head with the most powerful opponents and beat them."
On being told that EHRC would be forced to pay its costs in full, Simon Darby said, "I told them they would never beat me or the British National Party, but they simply wouldn't listen. Now these people are going to pay the price for persecuting Nationalists. The question has to be asked as to whether this discredited quango will survive the next round of government cuts."
Exactly how much the EHRC will have to pay must now be assessed in a long and complicated procedure that will take some months. When we get our money back, it will make a healthy contribution to our war chest for next year's Assembly election in London, where the EHRC is/was based.
Adam Walker speak about the court case brought by the EHRC against the British National Party which drew to a close yesterday. Judgement will be delivered in a weeks time.
Why doesn't the BNP stand its ground and fight the Equalities Commission? Why are we changing our Constitution when the law is not yet in force?
We are standing our ground, and doing so has already cost us tens of thousands of pounds. The Equalities Commission timed their legal assault to interfere with our General Election preparations. They claimed that our present constitution not only will be illegal under the forthcoming Equality Act (which it clearly would, because this wicked 'law' has been tailor-made to deal with the BNP) but that it is also illegal under the present law. We dispute this, but to engage in a legal battle that could easily end up costing us £250,000 to try to prove that point - which will almost certainly be irrelevant within a couple of months - would be utter madness.
It was a simple choice: Contest that on their ground in court, or contest the General Election. We are a practical party fighting in the real world for the rights of our people. Victory in the left-leaning court system would have been very unlikely, and we would then have been forced to pay the Equalities Commission gargantuan legal costs as well as losing our own. Such futile show-boating could easily have bankrupted us.
Why has our membership list been frozen?
We undertook to freeze membership applications because by doing so we instantly made it impossible for the Equalities Commission to claim that our admissions policy is discriminatory. If we hadn't done this they would immediately have been able to launch full blown legal warfare that would have cost the Party an enormous sum of money and virtually destroyed any chance of our contesting the General Election. The freezing of our membership list enabled us a 'breathing space' of several months in order to change our Constitution, making our membership criteria compliant with the forthcoming Equality Act that is being rushed through Parliament.
We have no real choice in the matter, any attempt to circumvent or deviate from the brittle undertaking to the court would result in financial disaster for the Party and certain ruin. We certainly didn't agree to this lightly. The membership ban is seriously hitting our finances and organisation, and has stunted our General Election preparations - which was their plan all along. But it was clearly much the lesser of two evils.
Why has the court process, and the process of producing a new Constitution, dragged out for so long?
Solicitors are very expensive to hire and until the decision to put the new constitutional changes to the membership had been taken by the Voting Members at National Conference, it would have been folly to spend money on legal researchers in advance. So until mid November when the Conference took place, our hands were tied. Once Conference had made the decision to put the new constitutional changes to an EGM, solicitors were hired to produce a legally sound new constitution for the Party. Then several more factors delayed the production of the proposed new constitution.
First, to stand even a chance of creating a constitution which would come within the Equality Act without leaving the party wide open to the kind of subversion being planned by the likes of Simon Wooley and Operation Black Vote, we had to find lawyers who were experts in Race Relations and anti-discrimination laws. Since every single existing firm of specialists in this field is fundamentally left-wing, that meant that we had to find a normal, non-political, firm willing to start from scratch becoming expert in this enormously complicated area of the law. Second, with the far-left and police regularly intimidating venue owners we had difficulty finding a suitable place to hold an EGM. Then the bitter winter weather caused delays and cancellations to several key meetings with our lawyers, disrupting the extremely tight timetable laid down by the court, thus in the end putting our planned EGM on 14th February sixteen days past the date first agreed.
Is this whole saga a disguised attempt to ban the BNP by the backdoor?
The end result of the Equalities Commission court case is that the right of ethnic groups to associate amongst themselves is outlawed, and any attempt to do so will result in legal retribution. However, what is also apparent is 'one rule for them and one rule for us' - the Equalities Commission is engaging in selective prosecution on a truly breathtaking scale. Why the BNP now, 28 years after its foundation? Why not haul into court similar ethno-centric organisations? If the Equalities Commission had its way, the BNP would not exist at all.
This was apparent by their statements at the last court date, where they seemingly dropped all reference to our admissions policy and instead started lambasting the principles that underpin our Constitution, such as our commitment to preserving the indigenous ethnic and cultural character of the British people. Ethno-nationalism is then the first ideology and viewpoint to be outlawed in democratic Britain. From the start of the court case onwards, ethno-nationalist political organisations cannot exist, except in prostrated form, and take part in the political process. Welcome to totalitarian Britain.
Will the Equality Act become law if the Conservatives win the election?
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman (the person responsible for deciding/timetabling Parliamentary business), are hell-bent on forcing the Equality Act through before the forthcoming General Election. The judge in the last hearing stated categorically his opinion that the current Bill will become law very shortly. Even if by chance that doesn't happen, anyone who thinks that David Cameron's ultra-liberal Conservative Party would scrap the Bill clearly doesn't understand just how much Cameron has been created and promoted as a clone of Tony Blair, in order to carry on Blair's work.
Just this week, Cameron has declared his intention to give Africans with AIDS an automatic right to asylum and medical care in Britain. The idea that such a creature would let us off the hook is ridiculous. We have to prepare to survive the worst this rotten Establishment can throw at us. But in truth it doesn't even matter. The Equality Commission's attack was launched under current law, and had to be dealt with now. Waiting to see who wins the next election just wasn't an option.
Will the new constitutional changes lead to a multi-racial BNP?
The new constitutional changes comply with the forthcoming provisions of the Equality Act, thus making the BNP a legal entity once the new law comes into force. There is simply no alternative, except to face legal financial meltdown, and not being able to take part in elections. As for the BNP becoming a 'multi-racial' organisation, this will never happen. Nationalist political parties all over Europe such as the Front National in France, and more 'hardline' parties in many parts of Europe, have always had to allow ethnic minorities to join their respective organisations. This has never led to them becoming 'multi-racial' and it has never hindered their progress.
In the experience of nationalist parties on the Continent, only small numbers of patriotic civic ethnic minorities join and there is no reason to suppose that our experience - if the new constitution is accepted - will be any different. Among the changes and expansions to the constitution are many clauses designed to prevent any group who wish us ill from infiltrating and derailing the BNP. The biggest danger there never was the empty boasting of Simon Wooley and his fellow black racists, but impeccably white but liberal civic nationalists, refugees from the Tory party and such like. The new constitution gives significantly extra weight to the people who are already in the party, who have been 'through the mill' when times were really difficult. This does not discriminate against any ethnic group, but it will keep Johnny-Come-Latelys in their place.
Is Chairman Nick Griffin not willing to go to jail rather than capitulate in the face of establishment persecution?
Chairman Nick Griffin has made it very clear that he would regard being sent to prison on this matter of principle as a tremendous moral and political victory. But, unfortunately that is not the 'risk' we are facing. The penalties if we resist the Equalities Commission and the Equality Act would be overwhelmingly financial, further astronomical court costs and being deregistered as a political party and hence banned from standing in elections. Should we choose to adopt a stubborn, irresponsible posture, we would be financially ruined, tied up in expensive litigation and barred from taking part in the democratic process.
The choice we face is stark and non-negotiable: adapt to the new legislation, and survive, or face total and irreversible ruin. Fortunately the Voting Members took this point on board at the Annual Conference, where the vote in principle of complying with the Equality Act and keeping up the political fight was passed with only two individuals voting against. If the members who come and vote at next weekend's EGM show the same level-headed determination, we will present the new constitution to the judge during the first week of March, and anticipate that we would then be able to reopen our Membership and get back to business as usual. Poorer, but still standing, still in the game, and still working to win!
For months now we have battled the Equalities Commission to a standstill in court, and it has cost us dearly. At the last court date on Thursday 28th January, for example, the judge ordered us to pay £12,500 in court costs. When you add court costs on top of the money we are losing via the membership ban, you are talking about huge sums which should have been allocated to our General Election campaign. If you can spare any amount, however small, towards fighting the Equalities Commission and to our General Election preparations then use the details below. Thank you.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has refused to answer written questions submitted to it over six months ago on why it has not acted against a black police officers’ association that specifically forbids whites from being members.
The written complaint, submitted by British National Party Dagenham councillor Lawrence Rustem, was initiated after the Race Gestapo’s legal action was launched against the BNP over its membership criteria.
In August 2009, Cllr Rustem wrote to the EHRC asking if that body will “be taking action against the racially discriminatory policy of the Gloucester Black Police Association’s full membership policy which is designed to ‘benefit black staff employed by the Gloucestershire Constabulary?’
“Moreover, it is arguably the case that the GBPA is also acting in a discriminatory and therefore illegal manner, in that it seeks to maintain the ‘welfare of black staff’ and to ensure ‘service delivery to the black communities of Gloucestershire.’
“There is obviously no mention of the GBPA’s desire to ensure the ‘welfare of white staff’ or indeed to ensure ’service delivery to the white communities of Gloucestershire.’
“All of this can be evidenced from the GBPA’s membership criteria,” Cllr Rustem wrote. “One can only deduce that the GBPA is operating in a manner which is not conducive to ‘equality’ or indeed the ‘human rights’ of the indigenous community of Gloucestershire that such a service is and should be provided to all.
“As this is obviously a case of open discrimination by the GBPA, can the EHRC please advise me on what steps the Commission will be taking to address this issue?
“Furthermore, I would like confirmation of when action will be taken.
“Finally, can you please advise me of what action will be taken against other such organisations which cater specifically on ethnic grounds for people from ethnic minorities and when these proceedings will commence?” he wrote.
Cllr Rustem received a response — which was unsigned and anonymous — back from the EHRC’s Legal Enforcement Directorate on 1 October.
This letter said that “the Equality and Human Rights Commission Enforcement Directorate” will “carry out a preliminary assessment of the issues you have raised to enable the Commission to assess whether, and if so what, enforcement action is appropriate in this case.”
That was the last Cllr Rustem heard from the EHRC. “As one can see, the Equality and Human Rights Commission are very slow at responding when the role of equality is reversed and others seek ‘equality and human rights’ from them,” Cllr Rustem told BNP News.
“That must leave one with the obvious conclusion that in the eyes of the EHRC, some are more equal than others — rather much like the society that was endured in the abomination of humanity that was the former Soviet Union.”
The news is full of hypocrites today and here is the first...
The hypocritical Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), has once again shown he doesn’t practice what he preaches.
According to new findings, the wages of white staff are 9.66% higher than ethnics, able bodied staff receive 8.9% more than disabled staff and men receive 3.04% more than women.
