The news that the BNP has conceded the need to change its constitution in the face of legal action by the EHRC represents a brilliant victory for the equality watchdog and its legal director, John Wadham. I take my hat off to him, and them.
This is rather awkward timing for the BNP, of course, since it’s agreed not to accept new members until its consitution is changed. That means (unless they make the change very quickly indeed) there won’t be a wave of new members following Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. Few people outside the BNP will mind.
I don’t understand how this is compatible with the HRA’s confirmation of freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of association.
I think the article 11 freedom of association is the applicable one here. It can be restricted, for instance for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. That’s why organisations like al Muhajiroun can be proscribed altogether.
In fact I think it may be possible to construct a decent argument that the government has a positive obligation in human rights law to make sure the BNP changes its constitution: the article 14 right requires that there be no race discrimination in the enjoyment of freedom of association – but there is such race discrimination if organisations like the BNP are allowed discriminatory membership criteria.
So it’s certainly compatible with the HRA, I think, and may even be required by it.
I find that a bizarre argument. Surely freedom of association is the epitome of a “freedom from”. In what possible way can you have freedom of association if you are forced to associate with people you don’t want to?
This is why I think the whole human rights agenda is positively dangerous for civil liberties.
Tactically Wadham has blundered. It is in the BNP’s interests to appear to be the victim (for a change) of a draconian Government. Many within the BNP would, almost certainly, argue that this judgement is a vindication of their position – that a nauseatingly left-wing government, entirely subservient to a European bureacracy, is pandering to a range of single interest extremist groups.
Does Wadham or anyone else believe that the judgement will change people’s views? Warfare, through the courts or otherwise, is failure.
A fair point: I think being seen to single out the BNP for less favourable treatment than others may be a mistake, too. I’m very much in favour of their being on Question Time, for instance. Yes, the first appearance may give them a short-term boost (though thanks to John Wadham and his team, no new members!), but that’s nothing compared to the drip-drip boost (can you have one of those?) they’ve had from being kept off the media. They are by far their own worst advert, and we should get that advert on air if we oppose them.
But I do still disagree with you on this. This isn’t about singling them out, but enforcing against them the same law that applies to every other party, and with which all others comply. I don’t think the fact that black people don’t want to join, for obvious reasons, should let them get away with unlawfulness. And I think alerting the public to the fact that this is what their constitution said is a very valuable revelation, that will make a fair few people think.
That blacks may not choose to join the BNP is not the point, I’d agree. However if you are arguing for consistency of application of Law there are many other instances which come to mind – some within Westminster itself. You see, it appears that this drive towards such consistency is extremely selective – one might even (churlishly) say solely politically driven.
As to “thanks to John Wadham and his team, no new members!” – how can you tell?
Now, what’s your view of such organisations as black police associations or the MCB? Not political parties, strictly, are they? But any less important in terms of their influences and impacts on public opinions? Should Wadham be considering these groupings?
Organisations such as the NPBA are covered by the Race Relations Act but do not discriminate in allowing members to join. The MCB is probably covered as an association, although this area of discrimination law does not yet apply to religious belief discrimination. Incidentally, the old CRE funded a race discrimination case against the Labour Party, without which the action against the BNP would not have been possible so it can hardly be said that double standards are operating.
.-= James Medhurst´s last blog ..Employment status =-.