BNP membership list: let’s see if this “government of all, for all” will prevent or officially outlaw discrimination against individuals for belonging to a political party.

It’s created a criminal offence a day since May 1997: another one can’t be that hard, surely? Or…are some crimes “more equal than others“…?

David Davis

Discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or religion is (rightly) illegal. Except for, of course, as regards the human rights of a person who, say would not want to employ someone for reasons best known to himself, but we’ll let that pass for now.

The Libertarian Alliance, I must first state, does not agree in any way with the policies of the BNP, nor does it support any of them. It supports no political party whatever, with the possible unofficial exception of the LPUK.

I’m sure we’d all not want to live in a society where, if you belonged to a certain political party, you could be persecuted, officially or otherwise, victimised, or lose your job, livelihood or home. That smacks of the worst days of nazism in the Third Reich, and of the days of Stalin and Mao – and many other hoodlums we could mention. And indeed we have done, and recently. Nasty, low “Chè” had people killed, even personally by him sometimes, for not thinking the right things. Keeley Hazell would not approve at all, at-all-at-all.


But now we have this. I was alerted to it by this in the DT just now. I have no idea what Lancaster Unity is, not having previously heard of it, but, given that we don’t view the BNP positively for the best of philosophical reasons, Lancaster Unity does not seem like the sort of people we would really like to share a nation with either. They are probably a bunch of students up the road from somewhere, who have more fire in their bellies than sense or wisdom about how the world operates.

The fact that they are a “left wing top 100 blog” is a dead giveaway, but the blogosphere is a truly Free Nation, and they have every right to say what they please, as do we.

The Global-left is scared shitless of the BNP, since it views that party as a direct and mortal competitor for the votes of the effectively-disenfranchised Old White Working Class and its heirs of the moment whatever those may be. Whereas we as Libertarians have no position on this either way, since we see this spat as mere extremist infighting within the envelope of the Left. We also regard everybody – including people like “Unity”, as disenfranchised by a single oligarchical Enemy Class – which happens outwardly to behave right now as if it was part of the “left” – but that is a mere tactical accident of current events.

Correct me if I’m wrong: but I don’t think this government, a left-wing government, cares about the fate of people who have decided to support what some of the left thinks of as the wrong left-wing party which cares a bit about the fates of some left-wing-supporters, against another but larger lot of left-wingers who don’t care about the first lot of left-wing-supporters.

It’s Germany in the 20s/30s all over again, isn’t it.

The British Left (can we call these outfits “British Internationale Parties”?) is wetting itself with delight (here’s a typical example) as I suppose can be expected. Although as I have said in the comments here, it’s strange that today’s leftists don’t exactly see themselves as friends of the BNP: we here certainly are not their friends, but the Left they share most of their objectives. Very strange really.


  1. I suspect if the government reacts at all, it will be to bring in the version of the Prodi Levi law that Gordon Brown outlined in May 2007.

    But in answer to your question, the government will do nothing to prevent discrimination on the basis of belonging to a political party, for the simple reasons their paymasters, the unions, have already fought court cases to allow them to discriminate in just such a fashion.

  2. You are completely insane as the following indicates:

    That smacks of the worst days of nazism in the Third Reich, and of the days of Stalin and Mao

    It’s Germany in the 20s/30s all over again, isn’t it.

    No, no, no. The worst days of the above regimes involved mass slaughter and wilful extermination on an industrial scale of millions of people. What is happening in Britain is nothing like that.

    If you are unable to grasp this simple point then you probably don’t have anything useful to say, about anything.

  3. Hi David

    I pretty much mirror your perspective, as I have explained in my article on the matter


    For what it’s worth, I stumbled upon the discussion going on at the far-left wing webiste indymedia earlier, and I was nothing short of absolutely disgusted and depressed at what I read.

    People posting up specific individuals’ details, followed by rowsing calls for people to get sacked and persecuted for being on the published list.

    I loathe the BNP and what it stands for, but I will fight to the end of my days for the rights of anyone to hold the opinions they choose to hold, and for us to live in a society where we don’t fear a backlash for belonging to a particular group or party.

    Hopefully, my temper calms down after reading some of the Stalinist bullshit I’ve come across this evening.

  4. Er, Duncan, has it ever occured to you that Germany didn’t suddenly wake up in 1941, shocked and amazed at its overnight transformation into a monster and mass killer of human beings?

    It was the gradual build up to what took place that is important here – the drip, drip, gradual process of vilifying individuals and creating a bedrock of fear, hate and prejudice.

    Goebbels worked hard for many years to erode the principles and societal support for what we know as democracy and democratic values. It started off with the small stuff and worked its way up from there.

    Look at Anti-Semitism. Been going on for hundreds of years, and gradually it came to a head in Germany to the extent that may folks turned a blind eye to perspecution and murder.

  5. I agree with both your comments. Democracy relies on respect of others to have or hold an opinion – even if you disagree with it – and to vote for the political party of their choosing, again even if you disagree with it. It’s the cornerstone of democracy, tolerance of others and their political views. If we are to continue to live in a democratic society the BNP must have a legal right to canvas for votes as any other party, without fear of persecution.

    The left wing student rabble that are exposing these people and wishing their families harm and hatred only feeds the BNP political cause. I suspect many individuals will actually feel sorry for those publicly identified as BNP members. And there will be those that will inevitably be sacked / attacked / burnt out of their homes etc by the angry mob after their pound of flesh. The problem is that today the BNP have become the victims, and this may actually lead to greater sympathy for their political ideals – something the left wing students are too naïve to see at the moment.

  6. On examination, further, the bNP appears to be a rather statist, corporatist, left-leaning party, which favours distinctly Old-Labour policies, including leaving the EU – new Labour obviously does not agree with this particular one, but there are still not many differences – even “British Jobs for British Workers” shines through in one form or another. I suspect that the BNP thinks it means that bit and new Labour does not.

    Should not the Left be supporting the BNP rather than being terrified of it?

  7. I think it will be more interesting to see if the party which is rabidly against the Human Rights Act now uses it to get the list taken down. To me, if people on that list are so ashamed of it being public knowledge that they want to be removed from it, they should accept that they are ashamed because their beliefs are disgusting.

  8. It would be interesting to see the Conservative Party Membership list published, with a cross-comparison to the BNP list.

    CIA and NSA will already have both, lifted straight off the (insecure) computers. The Tories have their outfit security checked by Special Branch weekly, whereas they seem not to have asked GCHQ…

    “Freedom of Information” and “transparency” and all that…



  9. >To me, if people on that list are so ashamed of
    > it
    > being public knowledge that they want to be
    > removed from it, they should accept that they
    > are ashamed because their beliefs are
    > disgusting.

    I suspect in fact there’s a rather circular relationship here; people on the list may well be reticent to be public about their beliefs *because of what other people think and how they would react* (just as you have) rather than because of *what* they believe.

    Indeed they appear to believe enough to have joined a political party.

    The problem with this is that the general opinion of which beliefs are disgusting varies by time and place. For example, in many places at many times, *not* being anti-Semetic was disgusting.

    It is dangerous to adopt policies of discrimination (of any kind – overt political acts, or covert social acts) against “bad” beliefs, because you are then exactly one step away from applying those sanctions against *any* beliefs – as we have seen in history, in many times and many places, beliefs we now would consider appalling were required – just as you are requiring BNP supporters not to be racist.

    Not wishing for racism is noble, but to try to achieve it by shaming people into hiding their beliefs? not optimal and quite dangerous.

  10. Firstly I have to say that a ‘Human Rights Act’ in itself is not a bad idea. In fact, if it were representative of what I will call the best traditions of British democracy and citizenship, it would have served a useful function by making the state’s and individual’s status clear. I must say I’ve never actually read it, so I’m just going on its effects which I have observed.

    But this publishing of the BNP membership list will certainly have detrimental effects on that party. Although the government is behaving Stalinist, I think we’ve reached a point now where people will stuggle to forsake conforming to society’s conventions for political reasons.

    As for the BNP, with only basic historical reference and jurisprudence I could dismiss their policies, and I wouldn’t need to sack them or beat them up either. And hey, I’m a man-in-the-street, I don’t even work for the govenment! 😛

  11. David Davies (post 19 Nov) is dead right-all the policies of the BNP are very oldleftist.

    Having read their mag ‘Freedom’ a couple of times, it brings back fond memories of reading t’ Socialist Worker’ when a long haired student circa 1972 ! Norman Tebbit has been almost a lone voice in the commentariat wilderness so far pointing out how the BNP are left wing-actually – that’s why the Labour Party are so bloody scared and will do anything they can to try and destroy them – because the BNP precisely appeal TO Labour’s traditional heartlands – who have been deserted by the shapeshifters that have iniltrated Labour and turned it into a supporters cluib for middle class trendies who get their livlihoods fromn working for the state machine.

    My donation to them is in the post !

  12. I disagree. You could just as easily say that Hitler was left-wing because of some of his policies. The BNP are not left wing; they just use very inclusive rhetoric to get people on board. In the same way that the National Socialist Party was not left wing, despite containing the word “socialist” in its name, the BNP are not left wing, despite their attempts to appeal to the masses.

  13. So if Hitler was not “left wing”, why did he have an alliance with Stalin that actually meant something, until he tactically destroyed it in his rage at being defeated in the West?

    Hitler was left wing: he effectively says so in many places in “Mein Kampf”.

  14. Hitler’s whole shebang was “corporatist” leftist: that is to say, individuals did not signify unless they were part of “groups” – such as the “Nazi party”, the SA, the “Army”, the HJ, the Bund-Deutsche-Madel, the “Jews”, the “Slavs” and so on.

    The BNP regards, as do today’s “New” leftists in the UK, people as being part of groups – such as “English”, “Whites”, “immigrants”, “workers” and so on.

  15. “Discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or religion is (rightly) illegal”

    I think you need to be careful here.

    Discrimination by law (“no person may rent property to a jew”) is a restriction on freedom because it prevents landlords and jews from entering into consensual transactions.

    But so are laws that prevent discrimination (“no person may refuse to rent property to a jew”).

    The right to refuse to deal with a person for any reason you choose, is surely just as much part of freedom as the right to deal with any person for any reason you choose?!


  16. …Except for, of course, as regards the human rights of a person who, say would not want to employ someone for reasons best known to himself, but we’ll let that pass for now….

    I referred tot hat in passing at the top of the post as you see. I just wanted to get on with the issue in hand – I can’t multi-task-and-blog-at-the-same-time!

    The issue is a real one, but I wanted to stick to the horror-in-hand.

  17. Yes I saw your qualification and I guess nobody here is likely to be misled by the apparent generality of your opening statement. Still, best to be careful! Wouldn’t want people to think that we subscribe to politically correct nostrums about the virtues of anti-discrimination “laws”.

Leave a Reply