Tuesday, 25 August 2009

BNP due in court over 'indigenous' members

When I posted back on 23rd June about the threat to take the BNP to court over its whites-only membership policy many of you contributed erudite and illuminating comments on what, precisely, constituted 'indigenous' Britishness. One of my favourites was from Costello, quoting Sellar and Yeatman;

"The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and vice versa)."

Now the writs have been issued and we will hear the fascinating legal arguments that m'learned friends will advance.

If, as has been suggested, a race defines itself by language, then the indigenous peoples of these islands, speaking Brythonic in England, lost their cultural identity (but not their genetic dominance) when Anglo-Saxon displaced Brythonic, emerging, with a dash of Latin and Norse French by the time of Chaucer, into English.

It's all nonsense, of course; what the BNP really mean is that if you've got a decent whack of Melanin in your outer wrapping, you can't play. Nothing to do with language, genetics or culture.

And anyway, if people want to form a private club (which is what a political party is) and debar women, or people with red hair, or green-eyed men, or short people, or dark people from membership why on earth should the State intervene? The extension of this to its absurd conclusion is the State regulating the choice of guests at my dinner-table, prescribing an amusing homosexual, a working-class black woman and a handicapped adult to sit at the board each time I host a meal.

I'd sooner join the Ugly Dunces Club than the BNP myself, but if they want to set this rather silly membership criterion, what moral right does the State have to intervene?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Labour just can't stomach the fact that they were beaten out of what they saw as "their" heartlands and they have been busy trying to trump up some excuse to poke the BNP in the eye. They still don't get it...

The Labour party represents NOBODY in this country.

Coney Island

Blue Eyes said...

R - exactly my take on the whole thing. If gentleman's clubs want to be stuffy throwbacks to a bygone era then let them, I won't join. If a political party wants to exclude a significant pool of talent then that is their look-out.

Budgie said...

Anti discrimination laws are all politically correct special pleading - only the fashionable groups get to have it. All discrimination legislation should be abolished -let everyone be subject to the same universal Common law within our country.

Cooking Lager said...

The saddest thing is that it allows the BNP to be the victims of an obvious witchhunt and elicits sympathy for them. Not the way to beat them.

JuliaM said...

"The saddest thing is that it allows the BNP to be the victims of an obvious witchhunt and elicits sympathy for them. Not the way to beat them."

When are they going to learn this?

electro-kevin said...

Will they take the Black Police Officers' Assn or the Gay/Transvestite groups to court ?

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that the ritual "I wouldn't want to be a member and they are narsty" declaration is felt to be needed whenever people talk of the BNP in print. Just like the "there's nothing wrong with it" that must go with any talk of homosexuality.
You all are fearful of the thought police.
Luckily I am safe as I no longer live in the UK.