BNP Membership Reopens Despite Race Gestapo’s Attempt to Subvert Democracy

Membership applications to join the British National Party are now again open despite the state’s best efforts to subvert the party and democracy, Nick Griffin MEP has announced.

Speaking after the conclusion of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) court case today, Mr Griffin said the court had in effect ruled that political parties could not ask its members to endorse policies which oppose mass immigration.

“The court ruled that sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 of the BNP’s new constitution could not be set as conditions for membership of the party as they would discriminate against ethnics,” Mr Griffin said.

Section 3.2.1 of the BNP’s new constitution reads as follows:

Our party is a party of British Nationalism, both ethnic and civic, and we are committed to the principle of national sovereignty in all our British Homeland affairs and of self determination and sovereignty in all Indigenous British affairs.

We are pledged to the continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence of the unity and of the integrity of the Indigenous British and of the government of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and of Eire, which together, and as further expanded in Schedule 1 (“Interpretation Rules”), are referred to in this, our constitution, as our “British Homeland.”

Section 3.2.3 reads as follows:

We are pledged to stemming and reversing the immigration into our British Homeland that has, without the express consent of the Indigenous British, taken place since 1948, and to restoring and maintaining, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the Indigenous British as the overwhelming majority in the make-up of the population and expression of culture in each part of our British Homeland.

“The court has ruled that these clauses, which are part of the membership conditions as stated in section 4 of the constitution, makes it impossible for ethnics to join the BNP,” Mr Griffin said.

“We, of course, disagree with the court’s opinion.

“There is no correlation between being opposed to mass immigration and the opening of membership of the party,” Mr Griffin said, adding that he knew members of ethnic minorities who were just as opposed to mass immigration as any indigenous British member of the party.

“Section 3 of the BNP constitution is protected and cannot be changed except by an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the party,” Mr Griffin went on.

“The new constitution grants the party’s leader the power to change all non-protected parts of that document to comply with the law, without the need for EGMs.

“Section 4, which deals with the requirements for membership and includes the demand that members support all the principles of the party, is not protected.

“I have, therefore, with immediate effect changed the section 4 requirements, as I am entitled to do, to comply with the court order,” Mr Griffin continued.

“What this means is that people can apply to join the BNP without having to endorse and support the principles of the party.

“Everyone knows this is a mad situation, and it has set an astonishing and extremely dangerous precedent for all parties.

“It is a complete subversion of democracy and is in reality an attempt by the state to order the citizenry what policies they can or cannot believe in.

“The bottom line is that the BNP’s policies remain exactly as they were, particularly the demand for an end to mass immigration.

“I have changed the non-write protected constitution to comply with the court order and the amended version will be published online well within the 30 days set our constitution.

“Membership applications are therefore are now open and the 7000-strong backlog will be processed in the order in which they applied,” Mr Griffin said, adding that any ethnic who had applied to join the party would wait in turn like anyone else to have their applications processed.

Will Black and Asian People Join the BNP?

Today, British National Party members voted to change their constitution to allow black and asian people to join.

Party rules have been in place since 1982, but after interference from the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the Central London County Court told party leaders the constitution did not comply with race relations.

14,000 BNP member received the proposals for change via the post after the court ruling and were invited to London to vote.

Over 300 people voted for the changes with 5 against and 3 abstainers.

During the meeting, BNP security removed a journalist from the Times newspaper from the hall. The journalist in question had been asked to pledge that he would not work with another Times journalist, Fiona Hamilton, who has specialised in fabricating the most vicious lies about the BNP in the columns of that newspaper.

The journalist refused to give such an undertaking and was then asked to leave. He refused and was then escorted off the premises by the BNP stewards. Mr Griffin said afterwards that the BNP did not mind criticism, which was part of the political process, but was sick and tired of the outright lies from the Times.

The EHRC will be presented with the new constitution by Tuesday, before they and the BNP return to court next month.

Will the EHRC move the goal posts again?

Of course they will.

Mr Griffin said it was clear that the ECHRs intention was to keep the BNP in the courts in an attempt to financially exhaust the party.

Mr Rajinda Singh, a Sikh and long time supporter of the party, is expected to become the first non-white member.

The Hypocritical EHRC

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.

The full article can be read HERE

'Terror' wives must get their benefits back: It's a human right, says Euro law chief

If we need any reason to get out of the European Union this is one of them...

Europe's law chief wants Britain to reinstate the payment of tens of thousands of pounds in State handouts to the wives of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban fanatics.

Ministers have halted benefit payouts made to the families of suspected terrorists to prevent the money falling into the hands of banned groups.

The Treasury says the power is a vital weapon in the war against terrorism. It stems from a crackdown on terrorist financing launched in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

However, the senior advocate of the European Court of Justice, Paolo Mengozzi, yesterday declared the decision to stop the payments was unfair on the grounds of human rights.

His opinion is likely to prove crucial when Europe's highest court considers three test cases brought by the wives of British-based terror suspects later this year.

In eight out of every ten cases, the court has agreed with the Advocate General - making it highly likely the UK taxpayer will soon begin forking out hundreds of pounds a week to the families.

Whitehall officials have refused to name the families involved in the test cases - but all three of the husbands are foreign nationals on the United Nations list of international terror suspects.

They have been linked by security officials to Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban

The payouts to their wives include income support, child benefit and housing assistance worth 'several hundred' pounds a week.

Last night, campaign groups said it would be outrageous for the European courts to once again water down Britain's anti-terror laws.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'It is absurd that this unaccountable European court is trying to dictate

to the British Government how we spend our own money. British taxpayers are already sick of bankrolling the lifestyles of people who preach hate against our country, and there is no way that they should be able to fund their activities or their families through milking the welfare system.

'Whether you agree with the judgment or not, it is a choice that should be made by our country, not these lawyers who are answerable to nobody.'

Under the Treasury's rules, social security payments cannot be made available 'directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of' anyone who is on the UN terrorism sanctions list.

This has been applied to the wives of as many as ten terror suspects, who have been hit with licences restricting their access to state funds.

In the case due before the EU court, the three women claim this amounts to a violation of their human right to a family life.

Their first appeal was rejected. But in a second appeal to the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, judges had concerns about how the law was being applied.

In April 2008, they asked the European Court of Justice to provide a ruling.

Any decision by the European court, which is expected to issue a final judgment in three to six months, will be binding on the House of Lords and on courts throughout the EU.

In advance of this decision, Mr Mengozzi issued a 26-page written opinion in which he argued the phrase 'directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of' suspected terrorists was very widely drawn.

He acknowledged that the payments made to the wives could benefit their husbands, but disputed whether those benefits could easily be converted into funds to finance terrorism.

Mr Mengozzi advised the European Court of Justice to rule that the extra restrictions were unjustified and violated the right to respect for family life.

Earlier this week, the European Court of Human Rights dealt a separate blow to UK anti-terror policy when it ruled the stopping and searching of suspects without grounds for suspicion was unlawful.

The searches had been a key plank of policing for over a decade.

DailyMail