Hi,I understand The BNP seeks to exempt itself from being bound by The Race Relations Act 1976 and subsequent ammendments from being considered racially descriminatory on the grounds of colour making a differentiation of ethnicity not being based upon colour per se under The Act.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
The BNP seeks to be absolved by the legitimate exploitation of Articles 25 & 26 which I print below for your assistance in reaching your own conclusion.
Personally I would opine that their contention is correct in a narrow interpretation of the letter of the law as enacted, but what is law if it is not a narrow interpretation of the letter of the law as it stands.
It must be considered reasonable if the law was set up to protect certain ethnic groups that for Justice to be seen to be done the letter of the law must protect all ethnicity.
The BNP must surely be seen to have a legitimate claim based upon their deffinition of ethnicity versus colour which I seem unable to fault.
The great advantage of having The BNP brought out into the open is that the spotlight of investigation, exposure and judgement can be enacted to ensure the validity of our laws.
At this stage neither The Government nor its underhand QUANGO The Race Relations Board which I have long considered to be of dubious legitimacy and morally unacceptable in its prejudicial and racist imposition of laws to engender hatred.
It is my belief and hope that the clear light of day shone on The BNP as a result of the aid and assistance given them by such as Nigel Farage & Mark Croucher and others in EUkip making such consistent efforts to raise their profile, such that they had 2 MEPs elected thanks largely to EUkip will in fact be The BNPs undoing.
IF fortuitously in the testing of the law we find that we are able to erradicate the institutionalised racism and promotion of descrimination by such odious QUANGOs as The Race Relations Board that is very much a double gain. Sadly we will have to tollerate the inept and indollent self seeking closet racism of EUkip which is so clearly breaking the surface not only by their assistance to The BNP but also by their overt association with the extreme racist Lega Nord in The EU toy parliament in return for The EU's 30 pieces of silver.
The man of no morality is easily bought and consistently EUkip has shown over the dozen years or so I have been a supporter of UKIP that the leadership of EUkip are so bereft as to be without a moral compass such that they can not find their way home and spend much of their time in self importance acting as useful idiots for The EU by providing them with a fig leaf of democracy in return for many a ladel of unaccounted gravy.
I understand a part of the bribe from The EU was to provide Farage with a chauffeur driven limo and rather more than a mere office but a suite of offices with an upgrade of depth to the pile of his carpets and a choice of leather furnishings! We are well aware of how little he did for his fortune last time beyond serve his own interests and accounts!
It is clear EUkip lacks a moral compass on any issue and are thus not only unable to find their way home but inadequate to lead anyone anywhere - least of all a Country to independence, liberty and restoration of the fundamentals of Justice in a sovereign status free of Political Correctness and its associated Common Purpose of Communism.
You can read the Race Relations Act 1976 in its entirety if you CLICK HERE
Alternately you can consider Articles 25 & 26 on which The BNP rests below:
Race Relations Act 1976
1976 c. 74
1976 c. 74
Warning: This content may not be up-to-date. Please check the Update Status Warning message at the top of the Results within Legislation page.
Version 1 of 1
Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) - Statute Law Database:
"An Act to make fresh provision with respect to discrimination on racial grounds and relations between people of different racial groups; and to make in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 amendments for bringing provisions in that Act relating to its administration and enforcement into conformity with the corresponding provisions in this Act.
[22nd November 1976] Annotations:
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1Act: A reference to a detention centre within the meaning of Part VIII of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) to be construed as a reference to a removal centre within the meaning of that Part (10.2.2003) by virtue of Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41), ss. 66(4), 162(2) (with s. 159); S.I. 2003/1, art. 2 , Sch.
C2Act modified by Employment Act 1989 (c. 38, SIF 43:1), s. 12(2)
Act: extended (2.5.2001) by 1996 c. 49, s. 8A(10) (as inserted (2.5.2001) by 1999 c. 33, s. 22; S.I. 2001/1394, art. 2, Sch.)
Act: applied (10.12.2001) by S.I. 1993/1813, art. 4(1C) (as inserted (10.12.2001) by S.I. 2001/3707, art. 4)
Commencement Information
I1Act not in force at Royal Assent see s. 79(2); Act wholly in force at 1.9.1977"
Main body
Part III Discrimination in other fields
Goods, facilities, services and premises
Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) - Statute Law Database:
"25.
Discrimination: associations not within s. 11.—
Discrimination: associations not within s. 11.—
(1) This section applies to any association of persons (however described, whether corporate or unincorporate, and whether or not its activities are carried on for profit) if—
(a)it has twenty-five or more members; and
(b)admission to membership is regulated by its constitution and is so conducted that the members do not constitute a section of the public within the meaning of section 20(1); and
(c)it is not an organisation to which section 11 applies.
(2) It is unlawful for an association to which this section applies, in the case of a person who is not a member of the association, to discriminate against him—
(a)in the terms on which it is prepared to admit him to membership; or
(b)by refusing or deliberately omitting to accept his application for membership.
(3) It is unlawful for an association to which this section applies, in the case of a person who is a member or associate of the association, to discriminate against him—
(a)in the way it affords him access to any benefits, facilities or services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or
(b)in the case of a member, by depriving him of membership, or varying the terms on which he is a member; or
(c)in the case of an associate, by depriving him of his rights as an associate, or varying those rights; or
(d)in either case, by subjecting him to any other detriment.
(a)a person is a member of an association if he belongs to it by virtue of his admission to any sort of membership provided for by its constitution (and is not merely a person with certain rights under its constitution by virtue of his membership of some other association), and references to membership of an association shall be construed accordingly;
(b)a person is an associate of an association to which this section applies if, not being a member of it, he has under its constitution some or all of the rights enjoyed by members (or would have apart from any provision in its constitution authorising the refusal of those rights in particular cases).
26.
Exception from s. 25 for certain associations.—
(1) An association to which section 25 applies is within this subsection if the main object of the association is to enable the benefits of membership (whatever they may be) to be enjoyed by persons of a particular racial group defined otherwise than by reference to colour; and in determining whether that is the main object of an association regard shall be had to the essential character of the association and to all relevant circumstances including, in particular, the extent to which the affairs of the association are so conducted that the persons primarily enjoying the benefits of membership are of the racial group in question.
(2) In the case of an association within subsection (1), nothing in section 25 shall render unlawful any act not involving discrimination on the ground of colour."
To view the original of this data and the full Act CLICK HERE
I do not believe that there is EVER a morally acceptable contingency where a vote for The BNP is acceptable.
A vote for The BNP may well be the lesser of two evils but I consider it a vote for evil on any occasion.
NEVER FORGET that The BNP has failed/refused to repudiate its association with White Supremacist Extremists and the murder of some 4-5,000 mostly young men BECAUSE they are coloured - including an elected Black Mayor January 2008 & a Mexican American 2009.
Similarly they have failed to renounce their past association with extreme anti Judaism.
To VOTE BNP is to Vote for Evil.
