On the BNP and their constitutional changes to come

October 15th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Fat Nick caved in

BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.

The UK’s equalities watchdog had argued the BNP broke the Race Relations Act by restricting members to “indigenous Caucasian” people.

The court heard Mr Griffin had agreed to use “all reasonable endeavours” to revise its constitution.

BNP members will be asked to agree to the changes at a meeting in November.

Either the begging letters didn’t raise enough or Fat Nick thought it would be better spent in the upcoming general election.

Will the disgruntled party faithful accept these changes? Who knows, but according to the current BNP consitution (pdf) says…

1) Consideration will regularly be given to changes in this Constitution for the purpose of improving the functional efficiency of the party. Final authority to determine such changes, however, will rest with the elected National Chairman – saving those Sections protected by Section 13, Sub-section4.

So, the Chairman can change most of the constitution as he sees fit. What does Section 13, sub-section 4 say?

Any changes in Sections 1, 4, 5 or 13 of this constitution must be approved by a two thirds majority vote of members attending a General Members’ Meeting.

Follow the number. Follow the numbers.

Section 1 is Political Objectives

Section 4 is Elections to the Party Leadership

Section 5 is Advisory Council

Section 13 is General Members’ Meetings

All the above sections need a two third majority vote of the membership.

Section 2: Membership, doesn’t. Fat Nick, being the Chairman, has the authority to change that section of the constitution all by himself.

So where does that leave the BNP?

Fat Nick has no choice but to change the constitution because the law requires it to be changed and the Chairman has the authority to change it. The party faithful has no say in it. Either the constitution changes or the BNP stop being a legally* legitimate political party.

*Whatever, they will remain a morally illegitimate party.

All this though, will not change the party at all. Consider this, from a report of a public BNP meeting in Cleveleys (via)…

One member offers me a drink as he says: “We’re not intimidating are we? We get a lot of bad press but we’re not thugs.”
But I don’t like what I hear next as around six people put their hands up to request an application form to become a BNP member. One convert shouts: “I’ll have an application form, but not a coloured one!”
It was greeted with laughter by most in the audience, and was a deeply unpleasant reminder of where I was.

While inside the building the recruitment drive was in full flow, it was a different story outside as four people got turned away. All were either black or Asian. There were no members of the ethnic minorities inside.
As I left a security guard told me: “After a while it was getting full up so we decided it had to be members only.”
Strange that, as I was given a seat all to myself and I’m not a member. And I swear there was plenty of space.

The Steisand Effect: An analogy

October 13th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Mr Eugenides

…this outbreak of blogospheric solidarity, to put it into context, is akin to the Russians and the Germans taking a time-out from slaughtering each other to erect a big sign in downtown Stalingrad telling everyone that Cary Grant was a poof.

(via Chicken Yoghurt, I think)

Trafigura, Carter Ruck and a sock stuffed in a mouth

October 13th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

The Guardian has had a legal sock stuff in their mouth by those champions of justice Carter-Fuck on behalf of Trafigura

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations

I am absolutely staggered that a court would give such an order.

Alex Massie in the Spectator reckons he knows what the question is and the gagging order is to try and suppress this report.

This gagging order may not go right to the heart of Parliamentary privilige, which alllows an MP to speak in the house without fear of being prosecution or legal action, but it punctures a lung of an open parliament.

It may be the case that groups and individuals may be barred from being named, granted anonymity, in the reporting of parliament for reasons of national security, but to have that applied purely for commercial reasons is disgusting.

An open, freely reported parliament is essential for a smoothly run and corruption-free (as far as possible) democracy.

Something has gone very, very wrong.

I also found this at Sweeney* Maddison, the judge that approved/passed/whatever-it’s-called the order needs his arse kicking about this, too.

*apologies to Mr Justice Sweeney there.

On Gordon Brown and his eyesight

October 12th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

What the fucks all this fuss about Gordon Browns’ eyesight?

Ok, it’s unfortunate that someone has trouble with an eye, especially after losing sight in the other, but unless that person is a bus driver, lab technician or has a sight critical job, what does it matter with regard being able to effectively discharge his duties?

It would be different if Gordon was in hospital having a check on his heart because of palpatations, then it might be excusable, but fucking eyes?

The cabinet and opposition have defended Gordon, which is nice, but they shouldn’t have to. If they are defending Gordons physical ability to be PM, as apposed to his actual skills and experiences to do the job, then who is barking on about it being a problem? The press most likely.

Stuff like this the politicians should tell the press to fuck off with stupid fucking questions, and the press themselves should stop asking the fucking things in the first place. Any excuse to smear someone, even when it’s irrelevent.

By questioning Browns ability to do a job with any real power, the ability of blind and partially sighted people to work are being called into question.

Although Blunkett may be a cunt and was a fucking nightmare of a home secretary, would anyone have dared to question his right to hold the position of home secretary because a dog tells him where to stand when crossing the road?

Brucie: It’s only a nickname…

October 8th, 2009 § 5 comments § permalink

Brucie has weighed in to defend Anton Du Beke about his ‘paki’ comment saying…

But host Forsyth says that in the past the “slip up” would have been treated in a more light-hearted way.

He told TalkSport: “You go back 25, 30, 40 years and there has always been a bit of humour about the whole thing.”

What the fuck is funny about using the word ‘paki’? Has there always been a bit of humour about using a racially derogative, demeaning term for, not just Pakistanis but pretty much the whole of south Asia*?

(*I’m on about in proper conversation, not within the context of a joke)

There may have been 40-odd years ago there may have been some mirth in the term for Mssrs Smith, Jones & Brown, but I doubt very much it would’ve been the same for Mssrs Singh, Kahn & Patel. Or are they the ones that need to lighten up?

Bruce goes on to equate a term used by the Americans for the British, ‘Limeys’, with it…

He added: “Americans used to call us ‘limeys’ which doesn’t sound very nice, but we used to laugh about it. Everybody has a nickname.”

‘Limeys’ is a nickname that arose because of what the British sailors used to do – eat lots of limes. It may not have been meant in an endearing way, but it hardly had the racially demeaning connatations of one nations oppression of another.

Maybe Brucie, the old git*, should shut the fuck.

*Oh, is that a bit ageist? Well, If any old people out there are offended, let me know and I’ll draft an apology along the lines of Du Bekes’.


Brucie now says

To be absolutely clear, the use of racially offensive language is never either funny or acceptable.

Make your bloody mind up. That is the complete opposite to what you said earlier.

Having the decision made for you

October 3rd, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

There have been a couple of posts on this blog recently, debating the policy of No Platform with regard to the BNP.

I am of the mind that not to be involved in the debates in various arenas along side the BNP and to challenge them as and when their bullshit is being spouted is to miss an opportunity to challenge their propaganda at the time of its seeding in the mind of the listener, at the best time to challenge it.

This view is challenged by the opposing thought that to go along with any appearance of the fascists is to give them credibility, a respectability that they do not deserve.

The two ideas are both, I think, valid. The No Platform policy does have some history to back it up, against the National Front, but I just cannot get my head round leaving those fuckers to bleat on about how we are under an invasion that is ethnically cleansing the indigenous population with out challenging it at the time. it feels a little like letting them get away with it.

I confess, I do not know what to do. Do I carry on with my attitude of trying to refute them, or go for the No Platform policy.*

Until now.

(*I have never been in a position where this decision has actually affected anyone or anything directly, but you never know what’s gonna happen in the future)

What the policy of challenging the BNP needs, is not just someone opposing them in debates, which I am sure there are many people who could rip them to shreds, but chairmen of those debates and interviewers that are willing and able to challenge them and let the anti-fascists challenge them and follow up the BNPs’ responses with something more robust than is currently happening.

Until the people challenging the fascists in these arenas are able to go at them harder, and deeper in to the fascists answers to expose the real truths behind what is being offered as real by the BNP, then the BNP are not just being given a platform, but are able to turn it into a form of propaganda.

It’s not going to happen though, is it? Getting real scrutiny of the fascists in debates and interviews? When you have stuff like this interview and supposedly intelligent people fucking up so royally, it’s gonna be interesting to see how Jack Straw, David Dimbleby and whoever else is going to appear on Question Time handle Fat Nick and his lies, but I fear it is just going to show how the media and such are just not up to the job.

The decision is made for me. No Platform it is then.

Healthy Profits

October 2nd, 2009 § 4 comments § permalink

Yesterday the Guardian revealed the sheer magnitude of the sums of money spent by Lobbyists on both sides in the great healthcare debate in the US:


Lobbyists representing the commercial interests of those who are opposed to the introduction of public health insurance have spent a grand total of $380 million on advertising campaigns, lobbying and direct political contributions, whilst those supportive of the bill, such as the Pharmaceutical companies, have stumped up $150 million.

These methods of lobbying have been described as ‘morally suspect’, rather an understatement of the situation, and indeed cast yet another dark cloud over the mechanisms of democracy, and the brand of democracy that the US are attempting to export all over the world.

What this shows us, alongside yet another damnation of the current democratic system, is that the Capitalist system is so wasteful and incapable of satisfying even the most basic of human needs. Anne Kruger, a famous neoliberal and pro-capitalist academic, wrote about ‘rent seeking’ in the 1990’s, arguing that rent-seeking, defined as the quest for access to  ‘super profits’ (profits gained over and above the profits one would expect to receive in a perfectly competitive market), is wasteful to the economy, as Firms compete for these super profits at the expense of investment. Kruegers’ original model was used to criticise certain countries in the Developing world for the non-market policies that they implemented. Supporters of the efficiency of the market would yet again hold up this model, and argue that the public medical insurance scheme proposed by Obama is government intervention is anti-market, which in a sense it is. The $430 million spent by the Firms in competing for the super profits could have been used more productively if it were invested.

So far so good, Ms Krueger, you almost have us convinced that Obamas’ proposed reforms have actually contributed to a reduction in the efficiency of the market. If you are arguing that this sum could have been invested in the  public healthcare system, not made it’s way into the pockets of the already super -rich that inhabit Capital Hill, sorry, Capitol Hill, then that is very admirable of you.

However, this kind of argument is consistently used to hide that basic fact that the market is simply defunct as a system that can fulfill even the most basic of human needs.  Another finding of Kruegers’ model is that the amount that Firms are willing to spend on competing for the super profits will eventually equal the amount of super profits available to them. As the legislation has not been passed yet, and we do not know how much more will be spent, what we can say is that there is at least $380 million in super profits up for grabs.

We can also say that without the proposed legislation, these $380 million worth of profits implicitly coexist,  and rely on the fact that an estimated 46 million of the poorest Americans are excluded from the healthcare system as they are unable to afford either the private medical insurance or the fees.  To put it bluntly, the ‘efficient’ market outcome trades off $380 million in profits against the healthcare needs of the poorest 15% of the US population. This is what ‘efficiency’ means in real terms, and is characteristic of the market outcomes that we see all over the world. It is one of the starkest examples of how the capitalist system places profit above human need.

Where am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for October, 2009 at Sim-O.