UPDATE ON THIS WEEKEND'S BNP RALLY AND
VOTE ON THE EQUALITIES COMMISSION'S CASE
I have just been sent a most interesting report of an Emploment Tribunal decision. [See below] My correspondent clearly thinks this case MAY provide part of a sound legal basis for opposing the Equalities Commission's attempt to impose a multi-racial constitution on the BNP.
An Employment Tribunal has held that "Environmentalism" can be deemed to be a "philosophical belief" entitled to protection.
My correspondent's suggestion is that surely "Racialism" or "ethnic exclusivity" -- or whatever other description one wants to use -- can be likewise be portrayed as a "philosophical belief" and therefore claim protection, (however controversial it may be in these "politically correct" times).
In a business or other employing organisation, an employee is quite reasonably, expected to comply with reasonable and lawful instructions from an employer.
If an employee's "philosophical belief" can trump and employer's usual rights, then surely political parties can argue that they have at least an equal right as a business employee to protection, on the grounds that political parties are voluntary associations of like-minded people who seek to serve ends which are based on "philosophical beliefs".
Note that my correspondent (a BNP official) informs me that though, as I reported in yesterday's ELC, the BNP is holding a rally at Blackpool this coming weekend, and though the issue of the Equalities Commission's attempt to force a multi-racial constitution on the BNP will doubtless be discussed, the VOTE on that matter will not be conducted at an "Emergency General Meeting" on an unspecified day next January.
No doubt the right of BNP members to attend this EGM will be regulated by Gri££in. As this case affects the core ideology of the nationalist movement, it would be more appropriate that the decision on whether this case should be fought to the end be taken by a postal ballot of all persons who have been paid-up members for a year or more -- the ballot to be conducted by means that protect it from fraud.
As I urged in yesterday's ELC, those BNP members who are allowed by Gri££in's made-up rules to attend this weekend's meeting should ensure that the Equalities Commission law case is on the agenda. They should subject Gri££in to close questioning. Their starting point should be:
1) Did Gri££in obtain a Counsel's Opinion about the legal defences available to the BNP -- and if not, why not?
2) If Gri££in did obtain a Counsel's Opinion, why has he not published the text?
3) Who were these "expensive lawyers" from whom he claims to have received advice; how was that advice solicited (i.e. what issues of defence were suggested by the party) and how was that advice delivered -- verbally or in writing; and how much did the exercise cost?
If no Counsel's Opinion has been obtained, then a resolution should be put to the meeting from the floor requiring Gri££in to obtain such immediately, and to publish it immediately it has been obtained.
The membership (or those qualified by Gri££in to vote on this issue) cannot possibily come to an informed decision until this information has been provided. If such information is not fothcoming from Gri££in, then the party is being subjected to yet another of his swindles.
If they accept that without a whimper, then they (or those of them who don't put up a fight) will deserve all they will assuredly get.
To: Martin Webster
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:38 PM
Subject: Griffin's Conference
Thanks for your latest ELC. Griffin will discuss the issue of letting non-Whites into the BNP this Saturday at the party conference, but the EGM where the motion will be properly debated and voted on will be held in January (no date yet given.)
Griffin is back in court with the Equalities Commission on January 28th, and will hand over the EGM's decision then. I want to build up a good case to oppose the motion. Below is a recent Employment Tribunal verdict that may be of interest in this debate? Surely Racialism could be considered a philosophical belief?
BBC News - Tuesday 3rd November 2009
Eco-employee wins bid to appeal
A man has been told he can take his employer to tribunal on the grounds he was unfairly dismissed because of his views on climate change.
Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford, was made redundant in 2008 by Grainger Plc in Didcot, as head of sustainability.
He said his beliefs had contributed to his dismissal and in March a judge ruled he could use employment equality laws to claim it was unfair.
But the firm appealed against this as it believed his views were political.
After the hearing on Monday, Mr Nicholson said he was delighted by the judgement for himself and other people who may feel they are discriminated against because of their views on climate change.
His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations."
Mr Nicholson was given permission in March to make his claim under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 that covers "any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief".
[emphasis in above 2 paragraphs added by MW]
But the ruling was challenged by Grainger plc, the UK's biggest residential landlord, on the grounds that green views were not the same as religious or philosophical beliefs.
Mr Nicholson, who said his opinions affect his whole lifestyle, claimed his views had put him at odds with other senior staff at Grainger and been ignored by managers.
He said he had tried to set up a carbon management system for the company, but was unable to work out its carbon footprint because staff had refused to give him the necessary data.
Mr Nicholson also accused the chief executive, Rupert Dickinson, of showing "contempt" for his concerns and claimed he once flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry which he had left in London.
Grainger corporate affairs director Dave Butler said: "This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.
"Grainger absolutely maintains, as it has done from the very outset of these proceedings, that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence, which also required other structural changes to be made within the company.
"Grainger rejects outright any suggestion that there was any other motivation relating to Mr Nicholson's beliefs or otherwise."
The case was heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London.