Iain ‘Fail’ Dale fails to understand the problem…
Are we really saying that a BNP supporter is incapable of doing his job as a police officer? If an officer displays any degree of racial discrimination during the course of carrying out his duties, then I would be the first to say that disciplinary action should be taken, but a blanket ban is wrong, and in itself discriminatory. Should we also fire any police officer who supports any political party, or just those ones we don’t happen to approve of?
Is it wrong to discriminate against people that discriminate? Do Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats want the removal of people from the country depending on their colour?
The BNP Constitution, Section 1, sub-section 2, part b…
The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigrationand to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.
That statement in the BNPs’ constitution isn’t just about declaring their dislike for a certain section of society, it is a declaration to ethnically cleanse anyone that the BNP decides do not belong.
Membership of the BNP isn’t like the church where there are differing opinions on particular areas of thought. For example. Some members of the Church of England don’t give a monkeys’ about homosexuality and some think it’s abhorrent.
Every member of the BNP has read (or should’ve done) and agrees with it. Every member of the BNP thinks that non-white European people shouldn’t be here, have no right to be here, is taking something away from the white people.
What do you think ‘negotiation’ and ‘consent’ mean? BNP member have been arrested for ‘negotiating’ with non-white citizens.
At the moment the BNP are not able to get rid of people by legal changes, but if they did, what do you think that would involve? Forced deportations, removing civil liberties, there will be probably be organisations that are deniable to help ‘persuade’ people to leave.
The BNP aren’t fucking about.
Having said that, and much more could be said, if someone believes that much that someone, who’s family have lived in this country, 3 generations or so born here, no connections to anywhere else, works, pays taxes etc, does not belong just because of the colour of that persons skin, why would they help them? Any occasion that requires someone to call the police is a bad situation. A bad situation could help someone decide to leave. The BNP member is committed to getting non-white people to leave.
There are several arguements that go with this, mostly ‘whatabouteries’. The two most common appear in The Fail Dales post and comments. These are religion and the National Black Police Association.
Well, the religion one, as explained earlier using what could be said is a parallel situation, does not have a definative, stated viewpoint, policy, or objective with regards to homosexuality. Some strands of religion accept it, some don’t. Some are still deciding. It may be the case that religion and being a police officer are incompatible, but that is a different discussion. The two things, religion and being a copper, and BNP membership and being a police officer, are separate issues. One does not dictate the result of the other.
With NBPA, it states on the front page of their website…
Membership of the NBPA is open to all in policing on application.
There is no bar to membership based on colour.
The NBPA is also not trying to deny anybody anything. They are not calling for the removal of white police officers or the denial of employment rights from a certain section of the force.
The BNP want to solve the problem of ‘British workers for British people’, racial discrimination, and social housing problems by removing sections of British citizenry. Not just recent immigrants or asylum seekers but also people that know nothing else. People that don’t just feel British but are British.
Ooh, I nearly forgot. Another arguement is that the BNP is a legal political party so why not? Well, the BNP is a racist organisation pushing racist idea and policies. This means that the question shouldn’t be ‘should police officers be allowed to join the BNP’ but ‘should the BNP be legal’?
One of Dales’ commentors has hit the nail on the head…
The truth is that supporting the BNP is itself a racist act: it makes a person guilty of contributing to a climate of racism and prejudice in this country, which is harmful to racial and ethnic minorities. That is true whether or not the person considers him/herself to be a racist. We ought to be upfront about this fact, and more willing to openly condemn supporters of the BNP. Saying that supporting the BNP is a mere ‘protest’ gives the party, and its supporters, a veneer of legitimacy that they just doesn’t deserve. If someone supports the BNP, in any capacity, they are complicit in racism. They have contributed to making life that little bit harder for racial and ethnic groups in Britain, and that is something of which they should be ashamed.
All I can say is – yep.
The counter-example I like to use is NAMBLA; would we allow paedophiles to be child protection officers?
I wrote this piece about the issue when the BNP membership list was leaked.
.-= Dave Cole´s last blog ..Unemployment figures =-.
NAMBLA?
Just googled it. and ooh *sharp intake of breath*, good counter example.
Iain Dale is a twat.
.-= Daniel Hoffmann-Gill´s last blog ..Who Owns America? =-.