Talk:British National Party/Archive 10

The BNP Outside England
The Beginning of the article states the BNP only stood for English seats in the 2005 General election, this is definitly not the case, as I remember they ran against Mohammed Sarwar in Glasgow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.139.33 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim White polled 149 votes or 0.46% ref. www.alba.org.uk/scot07constit/g04.html - 29k  They came 10th out of 10 candidates --Streona (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive
archived the talk page (old comments are here). I also think a fresh start on the comments page is needed, so we can have a fresh start in examining how to improve the article.

For my part, I'd like to suggest moving most the detail on the election results from the lead section into the election performance section.

Also, the "Opposition" section has lots of information which is related to the "Claims of repression of free speech" section - perhaps it should be moved, or the "free speech" part made a subsection of "opposition"? I'm not sure how to best do that. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that a good place to start would be to wait for the independent Peer review to conclude and await for the recommendations. this way there would be an independent basis for discussion to start and would be focused solely on the content and structure of the article. It would also allow the discussion to be lead by policies and guidelines.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the election performance - if it's moved, maybe have a sentence such as "the party has a seat on the London Assemby, and has consistantly been the fifth-largest party in other elections, though without holding any other representatives or power"? Free Speech as a subsection of Opposition is quite a good idea though. The main thing the article probably needs is more information about their general non-racial policies (especially the environment), and their responses to major events such as the credit crunch--MartinUK (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we also improve the policies section
This article is obsessed with immigration and racail stuff, why not add their actual policies from in full detail? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.0.182 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be a little pat - their policies are all to do with immigration. On a more serious note - feel free to add stuff on their other policies, but not to the point that the 'ethno-nationalism' is downplayed, per WP:Undue Weight. -- Neo  Nerd  20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You can get the BNP's new manifesto from the website, it is under policies section. Hasve a look. It's a little brief compaired to the 2005 but at least it is "with the times" :)

Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark ? The racial policies are the defining policies- the rest is just bolt-on. I don't think anyone joins them for their opposition to docking of dogs' tails.--Streona (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody said anything about actually removing details of the race-related policies - only of adding the other stuff, which in some cases is interesting and at least gives some impression of what people are interested in. To extend your analogy, there might be virulent supporters of dog-tail-docking who are BNP members without being aware of a polict they strongly object to. We've already got a few non-racial policies, such as supporting capital/corporal punishment and supporting special schools, but there are more.--MartinUK (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree Martin, but what's with this "we" ? Is that "we" editors of wikipedia ?--Streona (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We are over 9000 editors. This is just the lul before the storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.14 (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I mean anyone who's edited this article.--MartinUK (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The BNP is not a whites only party
Although it is primerly aimed at white people, it actually has a half Turkish man, sevrel Jewish councillors and an Ethnic Liassion Comittee. (this has sevreal sikh members)

I think the term "whites only" or "white nationalism" doesnt properly describe the parties belief's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.240.108 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The BNP Constitution seems to imply that it is.--Streona (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide a direct reference from the constitution to back up this claim.--Lucy-marie (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Constitution of the British National Party, SECTION 2: MEMBERSHIP, subsections 1, 2 and 3. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Does not use the word "white" anywhere in the section. (and its from 2004). Its only excluding people that are not part of the indigenous ethnic groups listed. Says nothing about mainland southern Europeans or eastern. This definition would exclude most of Europe unless they have some connection with these groups. Saying whites only and white nationalism is really a POV of opponents to the party. In contrast there are many organizations that state specifically "black" as an ethnic group excluding all people which are "white" this seems to work out that everyone no matter their region of origin is black as long as they are not indigenous European.

An example taken from the British National black police association's constitution. "The definition of "black" is one that emphasises the common experience and determination of people of African, African-Caribbean, Middle-Eastern, Asian or Asian sub-continent origin to..." This is clearly blacks only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by121.213.167.14 (talk)
 * The NBPA is pretty much anyone except whites. That quote is an umbrella way of covering all ethnic minorities without explicitly saying so. I'm not convinced that all those races/cultural groups have a 'common experience' in the UK anyway.--MartinUK (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't use the word "white" anywhere in the section, for the simple reason that the BNP would be prosecuted for discrimination if it did! Hence the careful, long, drawn-out phrasing, which can only be interpreted as meaning that membership is restricted to Britons (and their descendants) who are white. Incidentally, this section is concerned with whether or not the BNP is a whites only party and the Constitution says (in a roundabout way) that it is. To add in the separate issue of white nationalism is not appropriate, but seeing as it has been, let me say this. Being 'whites only' is far from making it a 'white nationalist' party and I, for one, would assert that it is not, though it definitely includes such people in its membership. (White nationalists would have to accept some measure of equality between Britons, French, Americans, Germans etc; hardly the view of the BRITISH National Party). However, to say that the BNP is 'white nationalist' as is stated in the infobox is not "POV of opponents to the party" but representative of the respectable sources cited in support of that statement.
 * The fact that it's from 2004 (presented by the anonymous contributor above as a criticsm) is totally irrelevant. It is the latest and up-to-date constitution of the party. Sorry, but they haven't issued another one since! Emeraude (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No emeraude literally everything you said is wrong and entirely your POV. Yes by default the party's constitution by saying only indigenous British would incidentally be white BUT (and a big but you have to actually be able to comprehend this) because the party is excluding other "white" ethnicities that are not indigenous the blanket term white can not be used. It is entirely in keeping with an Indigenous rights party of which there are many. For instance there are identical Australian Aboriginal groups with similar definitions. These do not attract any critcism for this. It would start to make ordinary people think the BNP is simpy being criticised just for its foundation being on indigenous rights which is most definitely racist. So you see it can be interpreted in another way that is NPOV.

If it really is persecutable offense to use the word white I personally pity your country (people) you have had your human rights stripped from you. To not be able to identify with a common global ethnic group. To think you have organisations that would use a blanket term "black" to create what seems to be a international "get whitey" movement makes it more serious.

The fact that it's from 2004 was not a direct critcism (did i say anything critical) its just its old its 2008 now you'd naturally assume new releases in that time.. If they really haven't released a new edition then well thats that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.14 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Emeraude in the Armed forces membership discussion. You have said because the words "fascist" and "communist" aren't in the source you have removed the section. So how can you justify "white" and "white nationalism" when neither word are used in the BNP constitution section you referred Lucy-marie to.

The reason why the BNP have a petting zoo for "ethnics" like Mr. Rustem, is made clear here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/aug/01/uk.race.

"Griffin met senior members of the BNP to discuss ways of quashing the threat of legal action. The issue first materialised late last year when an Asian man threatened to sue the BNP after being barred from joining the party. The BNP's constitution stipulates that all its members must be of 'British or closely kindred native European stock.' The BNP's head of legal affairs, Lee Barnes, has warned legal action would be a 'potentially fatal attack' on the party, providing its opponents with 'the means to bleed us to death with compensation law suits'. "

and it is, as Emeraude, says framed (by legal eagle Lee Barnes -lol) in such a way as to prevent their being sued if the word "white" were to be included. I understand that the BNP Security Department is headed up by two former South African policemen. South Africa is a long way from Britain, but they are of white ancestry. As for membership of the Black Police Officers Association, the BNP on their website ask if the BNP are racist. It then compares itself with the BPOA implying that the BPOA is racially exclusive. Presumably this means the BNP do not deny being racist "as well". This is of course irrelevent because this article is not about the BPOA or Australian Aborigines but about the BNP. --Streona (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking about the Black Police Association is largely rhetorical. In fact, one of the linked articles on their main webpage lists 32 organisations which are explicitly only for a particular ethnic or cultural minority (selected from only a handful of towns) and states that "In reality, none of these organisations are “racist” — each and every community has the inalienable right to look after its own interests", and that this is what they are doing for 'indigenous British folk". At the same time, this page notes that they are criticised for having an 'all-white' membership.--MartinUK (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that they may not be racist, only white nationalist then? which is kind of where this discussion came in...--Streona (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It all depends on your definition of a white person, which can be an ambiguous point. The central core of the BNP's policy is about preserving British/European Christian values against a perceived influx of hostile cultures. Non-practising Jewish people are apparently white enough, as are some Middle Easterners who have explicitly chosen Western ways above Islamic or similar.--MartinUK (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If as you say it is so difficult to define precisely who is white and who isn't (assuming that it is important to want to), then does the comcept of "white nationalism" exist, except wholly subjectively, as it does in the minds of the KKK. In which case we seem to be in the position of bald men fighting over a comb. "British/Christian values" are even more difficult to obtain a consensus for. Looking at British values in the long-term I would suggest binge drinking and prowess at hand to hand combat.--Streona (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're talking about a gradual breakdown in decency, ethics and social cohesion, which left- and right-wingers would generally differ on the causes of. Anyway, that's off-topic. The indigeous British race is undoubtedly a fusion of several different European strands (Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Roman, Norse/Viking, French/Heugenot and Irish). Over the centuries, something called British Culture evolved, with differences and similarities to the rest of Europe, but more differences than similarities from the rest of the world. Those European races are much more similar in DNA, culture and heritage than those who have arrived en masse in the last 60 or so years. Is British culture worth preserving, or is it being enhanced by additions from further afield? That's the BNP's question--MartinUK (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The question for the rest of us; is British culture (decency, ethics, social cohesion, tolerance, democracy etc) enhanced by the BNP ? And is it a whites only party ? - which was the original question (remember we have to keep to the proper discussion or LucyMarie will come and sort us out!- no offence Lucy)

I feel that many British Commonwealth immigrants DO share certain things in common we do not share with other Europeans- such as the English language, service in the British Army fighting against our fellow Europeans at El Alamein, Monte Cassino etc. (except for the Poles)--Streona (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not 1948 anymore. How many of today's immigrants come from the Commonwealth countries? And when were we last at war against a European country? Also, most Europeans speak perfectly functional (albeit often Americanised) English nowadays. Having fought for Britain doesn't seem to be a big deal - we're fussy about letting Gurkhas in but don't seem able to keep Islamic extremism out. Sorry for going off-topic again, but it needed saying--MartinUK (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was mostly black people you didn't like ? (I think you know my opinion of the Notting Hill Carnival !) I -along with many Muslims I know, or am related you- share your antipathy to Islamo-fascists. However the BNP are just the other side of the fascist coin and depend on these extremist muppets to build their support.--Streona (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is all getting off-topic. In the article, "whites-only" is supported by 3 recent sources - 2 of the more respectable national newspapers, and a news item from the BNP itself. These sources do appear to support "whites-only" unambiguously.
 * The BNP's constitution was mentioned above, you can read it here (PDF, 0.2 MiB). It says it limits membership by "ethnic origin". Primary sources like the constitution are open to interpretation (as can be seen by the discussion above), so Wikipedia generally suggests using secondary sources, like the 3 sources currently in use. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)