Talk:British National Party

Patricia Richardson

Why doesn't the section on race mention that they have one Jewish councillor Patricia Richardson (politician)?93.96.148.42 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

she is mentioned in the section on Anti-Semitism, seems to be the right place for her.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not mention in the "Race and immigration section? Would seem appropriate.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have thoguht that the section on anti-semitsm was ther best place for her membership to be mentioned. I also do not beleive that she needs to be metioned twice (especialy as she is not an imigrant, and preumabeley is connsiderd white by the BNP, after all she is a meber).Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

She should be mentioned in the "Race and immigration" section, as are the members of other ethnic minorities. Her father was an immigrant, and she meets the BNP's definition of immigrants. Given the history of anti-semitism within the party, it is particularily relevant. Where do you get the idea that the bnp are concerned with skin colour? They talk of "folk groups", and "Indigenous Caucasian", not skin colour.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And what is the BNP current definition of Imigrant? I take it then that the BNP is not an all white party? As that is why I sugested that race was not an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the all white staus is currently under legal review as the Equalities Commission are in correspondence with them on this issue, but I refer you once again to statements made by Lee Barnes the BNP "legal officer" (& would-be epic poet)in theb case of Redfearn v Serco that to discriminate against an employee on th ebasis of BNP membership was effectively racial discrimination, precisely because they ARE exclusively white. If they are not then Bagel Barnes was fibbing to the tribunal. I am not saying he was because that might be libellous.--Streona (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bagel Barnes? By the way can we have a source please. So far all I have found is that Mr Redfearn states that "membership of the BNP was limited to whites..." http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/659.html sadly there is no mention of Mr Barnes. As far as I am aware Mr Redfearn is not the offical spokesman of the BNP. Moreover the BNP consitution used in this case is the 8th edition published in 2004 (which was in force at the time of Mr Redfearsn dismisal) http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/UKEAT0153052772005.doc. The legal team was MR BRIAN LANGSTAFF QC and MR CHRIS QUINN (caps not my own) not Mr Barnes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

from the constitution- (a) The British National Party is a party of British Nationalism, committed to the

principle of national sovereignty in all British affairs. It is pledged to the restoration of the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It believes that the indigenous peoples of the entire British Isles, and their descendants overseas, form a single brotherhood of peoples, and is pledged therefore to adapt or create political, cultural, economic and military institutions with the aim of fostering the closest possible partnership between these peoples. (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 immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference Slatersteven, particularly the following exerpt from the judgement

Lord Justice Mummery:

Introduction

A claim for race discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended (the 1976 Act) was brought in the employment tribunal by a member of the British National Party (BNP) against his former employer. According to its constitution the membership of the BNP is confined to white people... (my emphasis. Bagel Barnes (as I believe he is known to friends & enemies alike) represented him at the original tribunal. my point is that the BNP is a whites-only organisation according to Barnes and Lord justice Mummery.--Streona (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you found the source useful, I found the following particularly interesting “The constitution of the BNP Eight Edition published November 2004 sets out in Section 1 its Political Objectives.”

It is quite clear that this is an older version of the constitution, not the current one (9th edition dated November 2005). So whilst this can be used to show that at one time the BNP were all white it cannot be used to show that this is currently the case.

http://www.creideasach.co.uk/Case_Reviews/Redfearn.htm states that “by dismissing him, on the ground of the Asian race and ethnic origin of the people [being] transported”. Not that he was white (that was the case for appeal) also see http://www.conferencebarristers.com/files/Conference_Chambers_January_Newsletter.pdf.

Good point, Steven. The full text of the appeal case is available online, and you are right that redfearn's counsel agued as you have said, but LJ Mummery also says that the grounds had changed from the line put forward at the original tribunal by "a different representative" i.e. Lee Barnes, the BNPs amateur brief, who is no more legally qualified than I am, that the grounds were that the BNP were an all-white organisation. I refer to paragraph 16 of LJ Mummery's judgement

The employment tribunal dealt with both direct and indirect discrimination. Unfortunately, there was no prior case management conference to identify the issues for the hearing and no amendment was ever made to the originating application formulating the basis of the indirect discrimination claim. The case was, however, argued at the hearing on behalf of Mr Redfearn (who then had different representation than he has now) along the lines that "since the BNP is a whites only party the dismissal is indirect racial discrimination." Serco was challenged to show that such discrimination was justified. In Mr Redfearn's skeleton argument in the employment tribunal reliance was also placed on section 1(1)(b) of the 1976 Act. The submission was that it followed from the fact that

"membership of the BNP was limited to whites.. that [Serco] in deciding that membership of the BNP was incompatible with the Applicant's continued employment [Serco ] was imposing a requirement such that the proportion of persons of his racial group was 'considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group'. This applies a fortiori in this case because the number of non-white persons who would not be able to satisfy the requirement (of not belonging to the BNP) is not only 'considerably smaller' than the proportion of whites but infinitely less ie none at all."

www.emplaw.co.uk/free/4frame/data/2005irlr744.htm -

Interestingly the case is listed as 2006 although the dismissal took place in June 2005 so whether the 8th or 9th edition of the BNP Constitution was being cited requires further inquiry.--Streona (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actulay the dismisal (according to the source you provided) was on 30th June 2004. On 12 August 2004 Mr Redfearn presented to the employment tribunal a complaint of race discrimination. The 2006 case is the appeal, not the origional complaint. Moreover the document I supplied does states it was the 2004 constitution, the one you quote the judges claim from in your post of 10th July.

His initial claim was "by dismissing him, on the ground of the Asian race and ethnic origin of the people the Applicant transported." No mention was made of a claim for indirect race discrimination. Moreover the claim that the BNP is a whites only party was made by Mr Redfearn there is no mention of Mr Barnes, all it states is that "(who then had different representation than he has now)".

Now I would agree with you it is important that we establish the exact details of the origional complaint. Was Mr Barnes present and did he make any statements. What, if any, offical BNP documents were referd to (and how old, as it would seem that they are now out of date). What was the offcal BNP reaction, and did they offical suppory Mr Redfearn's claims based un mmbership criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I went off on holiday just after this & got cought up in revising for Mastermind. Still it now looks as though this issue will be taken to court by the Equalities Commission. I personally think that this is a waste of time since griffin introduced the idea of an "ethnic liaison committee" some years ago in the expectation of such a case and has told BNP members at a recent "fun day" (if golliwog-burning is your idea of fun)that the party would be structured in such a way as to retain power in the hands of the leadership and not by any putative future ethnic minotrity members. Protecting the rights of ethnic minorities who genuinely wish to join the BNP does seem a bit like providing free combs for the bald.--Streona (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not far-right, merely authoritarian

According to the renowned site Political Compass [1]: "It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear.". Look on the "compass" and you can see that the BNP is in reality more economically left than Labour Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It seems however to be a universal misuse of the word "far-right", so that it might not really matter anyways. User:Gabagool/sig 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who writes for Political Compass, and why should we care about their opinions, particularly when they appear ignorant of the basics of political theory? VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't ignorant, rather people still sticking merely to the obsolete one-dimensional "right-left" spectrum are. (Read professional feedback here) You must apparently then think that Stalin and Ghandi were on the same side because they were both "left-wing"? User:Gabagool/sig 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect they both supported Indian independence from Britain, but then so did Hirohito.--Streona (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the Political compass that the left right scale is inadequate to describe the range of politics. However I disagree that left and right are only used in a broader context to describe economic things, they are used to describe the social/authoritarian scale as well. Now weather correct or incorrect when used in that way the BNP are definitively far right. Using the compass it should also be noted they are as fascist (another point rejected) as Hitler (or Stalin) so if we feel Wikipedia should use the political compass rather than the general 'left/right' terminology still common today fine, but that is a bigger issue until then we should report on the scale used in a wider context, i.e. that they are repeatedly (correctly or incorrectly ) described as far right by many political commentators. --Nate1481 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

National Socialist might be a good description?93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they would be more towards that direction I believe, though more economically left at least. Not for any political comparison -but since you mentioned it-, on the National Socialist German Workers' Party-article it says in the introduction: "The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis; however in some two dimensional models based on economic parameters, such as the political compass, the Nazi Party is categorized as centre-right or simply centrist, and its actual extremism is highlighted on the social scale as authoritarian.". So if the Political Compass can be implemented in the German Nazi Party article, it should surely be possible to write the BNP version of it on this article too, at least just as a short note. I however do agree (as I made clear in my first comment) with Nate1481 that it "is a bigger issue until then we should report on the scale used in a wider context...". User:Gabagool/sig 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler ate sugar, you know. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought "National Socialism" summarised the balance between left and right described above quite accurately.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

we also all know what the connotations of that phrase are.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, it is true that, on the economic scale, they're somewhat unknown. As far as I can tell, they're somewhat middling on economic issues, generally taking a position close to, say, pre-schism Labour. However, to an extent, the Nazis were too (national socialism), but in normal context, "far-right" doesn't refer to their economic policies, it refers to their social policies—libertarians tend to be viewed as centrists or right-wing, but not far-right, despite their laissez-faire economic views—, of which the BNP are firmly on the conservative fringe. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Republican (and other parties in the US) use in their infobox on Wikipedia: "Political position: Fiscal: Center-right Social: Center-right" I guess the BNP then would be something like: "Political position: Fiscal: Center-left Social: Far-right" User:Gabagool/sig 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's right - "far right" encompasses the BNP's social and economic policies. Some form of interventionist economic policy is a characteristic of the far right. The meanings of "left", "right" and related terms are historically complicated, and name configurations of economic and social policies; this means you do get odd situations like the fact that right and center-right parties are usually against economic intervention, while both the far right and the left favor (different forms of) economic intervention. Because of this complexity, "far right" names a position that includes both the BNP's authoritarian social policies and their interventionist economic policies.VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The infobox modification sounds like a good one to me, as it woudl be more broadly useful, it dose almost the sem type of thing as the political compass but allows for the current use of terminology. --Nate1481 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Would that make the BNP have a socialist point of view towards economics then? (86.169.125.18 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Proposals for cleanup

It's been said multiple times on the talk page before but this article is way too long; it far exceeds Wikipedia's recommended size. I don't think we should delete anything significant, that's why the article needs to be split.

I think the history section should be split with a summarised version on this page and a new page created: History of the British National Party. Also lot of the information in the electoral performance section should be moved into the main BNP election results page, which at the moment is just mainly tables. The legal issues section could also be split into a new article as well. MaesterTonberry (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"British Jobs for British Workers"

The article currently claims that the bnp took this phrase from Gordon Brown, whereas he famously borrowed it from them and the NF. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7097837.stm93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But this page is about the BNP.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic policy

Its surprising that there's no mention of the BNP's economic policy, which is key info on any party

from the New statesman there's this

"A brief skim through BNP manifesto literature brings to light proposals for the following: large increases in state pensions; more money for the NHS; improved worker protection; state ownership of key industries. Under Griffin, the modern-day far right has positioned itself to the left of Labour."

link

www.newstatesman.com/europe/2009/04/bnp-european-party-british

I think something like this should be added

2.4 Economic policy

The BNP advocates a socialist economic policy, to the left of most major British parties. Its manifesto proposes large increases in state pensions; more money for the NHS; improved worker protection and the nationalisation of key industries.

Then cite the newstatesman article

any agreements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 July 2009

No problem with something being added about their economic policies although it should mention they intend to pay for some of those things like a better NHS by cutting international aid. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you link to a citation/credible website for the stuff about cutting foreign aid?

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your wording their is supported by the article; first of all, the NS article doesn't call the BNP policies socialist at all, so we shouldn't without a citation. Second, the article says that the BNP have "positioned themselves to the left," which isn't quite the same as actually describing these policies as left (indeed, it would be wrong to describe these policies as left wing, as they are typical far-right economic policies). We could describe the policies without characterizing them, and also perhaps try and include some of the naunce of the NS article (as well as other relevant sources).VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

http://bnp.org.uk/tag/bnp-economic-policy/ "Ending the £9 billion foreign aid budget" "the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers." And some criticism - http://www.socialismtoday.org/109/bnp.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the BNP economic policy described as "left" by a lot of sources used to mean "anti-capitalist". The traditional far right (Fascist) is usually corporatist which is different to what this manifesto states .The BNP policy is closer to traditional democratic socialism before it morphed into whats now called social-democracy or the modern left which ironically is closer to corporatism.

How about using anti-capitalist if people don't like left

2.4 Economic policy

The BNP advocates an anti-capitalist economic policy. Its manifesto proposes large increases in state pensions, more money for the NHS, improved worker protection and the nationalisation of key industries [news statesman citation]. It proposes to reduce free trade and to end foreign aid [BNP website citation]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the British political party articles are in a very poor state IMO. If you compare to the Republican Party article for the one in the USA, which is very good as they have an indepth presentation of their policies and political positions. On the Labour Party article for the UK party, it just mentions history, no really clear, layed out presentation of their current explicit policies. Its a bit of a shambles really. Same with this one. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

BNP fun day

FYI; today's News of the World has a video and undercover report of a recent BNP event:

Angel-faced racist aged 12 - Girl burns golly at BNP fun day

which should be mentioned here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but please see WP:RS and WP:NPOV before making any substantial changes. The "source" in question is a UK rag. Beganlocal (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with both policies, and stand by what I wrote above. Whether the NotW is a "rag" or not (perhaps you can post to a policy prohibiting its use as a reference?); there is video evidence at the URL given. I'm not clear what relevance you think the fact that the NotW is published in the UK has. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol interesting read and video, sadly such things dont even have the ability to shock anymore, each year they just seem to get more and more extreme. Perhaps we could have a section on their "Red white and blue festival", mostly just general stuff about what happens, with a couple examples of the darker side when the nazi uniforms come out. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BNP fun day- there's an oxymoron for you --Streona (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The day ANY article from the News of the world is used as a source/reference on Wikipedia will be the day I leave and never come back!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

legal action over BNP membership -bbc

This is a source that should be incorporated in the article. "In a statement it said: "The BNP's membership criteria appear to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regards as particular 'ethnic groups' and those whose skin colour is white. This exclusion is contrary to the Race Relations Act.

"The commission believes the BNP's constitution and membership criteria are discriminatory and, further, that the continued publication of them on the BNP website is unlawful.

"It has therefore issued county court proceedings against party leader Nick Griffin and two other officials" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8218397.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there should be a couple of paragraphs on this in the legal issues section of the article so its easy to find, not sure if its briefly mentioned somewhere else in the article.. Seems notable enough BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good information added, thanks Streona. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideology refrences

On ideology it says facism with sevral refrences however reading og there official website they claim not to be facist and the informaworld.com site has Nationalism and Racism listed as a subject only but no mention of them being racist, facists and does not prove it on the site. The google books links to a book talking about racism but has no mention of the bnp on the site however I admit I have not read the book that is listed. The further two are books that I have not read. The final refrence talks about the london bombings, BNP and facism but does not prove theese are linked together. Theese refrences may not be the best refrences beacuse they do not prove the BNP is facist and on the BNP website it claims to be nationalists but not facists. I suspect the refrences may also be bias because they are against the BNP party however I have no supporting evidence for this claim but it is clear the refrences do not prove the BNP is facist. I would like your view on thee subject I have done some reading on the BNP and don't find any reliable evindence that isn't bias to prove the BNP is facist. ROOSTER (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A box at the top of this page says:

Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please […] look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing.

and has a handy search facility to allow you to do so. This box below that addresses your specific question. Please heed them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I have read the FAQ and although I do disagree I suppose it's fair to say it. 90.195.27.132 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

far left party

The article incorrectly labels the BNP as 'far-right'. However, the positions held by the party and expressed in their manifesto are national socialist policies, and 'far-left' in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantubb (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read the FAQ at the top of the page which deals with this question and the archives where it has been gone over in huge detail. Reliable sources describe the BNP as far right so we use the term, although it is true they have some crazy far left policies aswell. But there are plenty of radical far right policies which can be listed to justify the term and its what most mainstream British media organisations describe them as and im sure putting far left would cause alot more problems than the far right term. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Ideology Addition

After looking at the list of ideologies I think it would be prudent to list Ethno nationalism, since they do fit the description.

-IkonicDeath

No problem with Ethnic nationalism being added, its clear they hold such views, although its already covered by the white nationalism i guess. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascism label

The fascism label is clearly a politicially motivated label as only bnp opponents use the term to describe them. And please don't just give me that whole "sorry this question has been answered before" rubbish because it hasn't actually been addressed in an unbias manner. Everyone knows the media generally call them "far-right" but only left-wing and anti-bnp media (such as 'the sun') actually call them "fascist".] The label fascist is purely politically motivated as the bnp do not actually hold policies of extreme authoritarianism but rather many incorrectly label anyone who is far-right as being fascist. And I'm afraid it seems that wikipedia is also no exception to this misconception of ideology. Please compare the BNP's policies against the definition of fascism and I'm confident you'll find that current BNP policies do not match them. Especially as fascism incorporates a "corporatist economic theory" whereas the BNP are known to be quite socialist in their economic policies i.e. supporting small businesses and rejecting large corporations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 September 2009

The Marxist interpretation of Fascism in the 1920s & 30s was that when the ruling classes were unable to supress the workers' movement by the usual means then they would be suppressed by naked violence offered by the Fascists of Mussolini & Hitler. Obviously this was a clearer label than "National Socialist." There is in this conception no reference to the vicious racism (and an optimism as to the Left's own strength) in Hitler's Nazism nor Griffin's, so it is only a partial explanation. No doubt the BNP would like to see themselves as "smashing Bolshevism" or whatever, provided they could find any left to smash. There are few openly fascist organisations left, although the American Fascist Movement regard the likes of the BNP as extremists.--Streona (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"No doubt the BNP would like to see themselves as "smashing Bolshevism" or whatever" But this is just your opinion - not an indisputable fact. I've followed the BNP for a while and I've never heard them speak out against 'Bolshevism'. In fact the BNP have a strict policy of no violence, they never march on the streets and they never assault police - unlike many of their opponents who fequently use such tactics that could easily be described as fascist i.e. the unite against fascism (UAF) & various fundamentalist Muslim groups behaviour at the recent Harrow mosque riots in London. Furthermore as a supposidly neutral website, wikipedia should realise that 'extremism' is reletive - not set in stone. Many people may view the BNP's views as 'extremist' but the BNP equally view their's as extremist, and given the fact that they are now firmly established as a minority party (with similar support to the UK Green party) one can no longer simply discredit everything they say as false.

I don't find references to political movements a hundred years old as being particularly helpful here. Equally, references to ideologies sixty or seventy years old are equally unhelpful; clearly, the grounds have shifted somewhat. However, when normally responsible journalists make such comparisons, we tend to regard them as reliable sources, despite the fact that they are principally writers and not political scientists. As for neutrality, this and similar articles seem to be perpetual battlegrounds between the pros, the antis, and the neutrals, and sadly, the neutrals are either absent or unwilling to fight their corner in the face of factionalism. Sad. Perhaps taking a step back on all parts would be advisable. Rodhullandemu 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe the BNP as fascists, quite right too because thats exactly what they are. Whilst the BNP refuse to allow Black British citizens to join their little party, you can be sure people will try to simply discredit everything the BNP says as false. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard for anyone to be neutral when dealing with an article on a party like this. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hard for anyone to be neutral when dealing with an article on a party like this." then perhaps you shouldn't comment on this article. "Reliable sources describe the BNP as fascists, quite right too because thats exactly what they are." What reliable sources - the uaf, the sun & other left-leaning papers - I would hardly consider them 'reliable' sources when dealing with a political issue they oppose. And how exactly are the bnp fascist? are you even aware of what that word actually means? As I already stated the bnp does not line up with the definition of fascism, they are socially very conservative and economically quite socialist. In order to be fascist a party or government needs to be socially very conservative AND very economically corporatist AND use force to threaten/intimidate, depribe or ban their political rivals - the latter two of which the bnp actually has done against them i.e. the banning of their members from certain local bodies & being physically attacked with clawhammers etc. I have to agree with Rodhull andemu here - references to 70 year old political ideologies aren't very intelligent or helpful, in fact much of this whole article reads as though it were written by a member of the uaf or searchlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you'd actually bother to look at the references provided in the article you would see what reliable sources consider the BNP to be fascist, and not one of them is the UAF or The Sun. MaesterTonberry (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry 203.100.211.178, i avoid making edits to this article otherwise it would be even less neutral and youd have alot more to complain about. In truth i dont have strong feelings about them being labelled fascist, originally i thought it would be best to remove it from the infobox because i can think of a few terms used to describe Labour which wouldnt be allowed on their page, but reliable sources do describe the BNP that way and there for we shouldnt just ignore that. Whilst they may not consider or call themselves fascist, we all know thats what they are. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick google gives lost of discussion including Why the BNP is Still Fascist, this and from the Guardian none are the biggest fans of the BNP but discussion of the BNP as fascist is legitimate based on this quick sample, a section discussion the disputed labelling of the BNP as Fascist/righ-twing/racist in the media would be a good addition that would address all this to a make the article more neutral. --Nate^t/_c 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles you listed are extremely bias and mostly draw on the party's neo-fascist past, not the current bnp. The first two of them are from small neo-marxist/far-leftist sites and can hardly be considered 'reliable' can they, as for the last one its arguements that the bnp is fascist is based on the old (1980's-1990's) bnp not the modern one (Griffin era). Its clear that many people think the bnp has 'put on a new image' just for political gain, but again thats just your opinion, it doesn't matter what a party used to stand for - after all the UK Labour party used to be anti-homosexual but you wouldn't call them that now. And besides why does it matter what some jouneralists say? they don't decide everything, if they started saying 2+2=5 would that make it true in wikipedia's eyes. Again being 'far-right' doesn't automatically make you fascist, and therefore wikipedia needs to stop their obvious bias against nationalism by comparing it to fascism of previous decades as peoples views do evolve over time - including Nick Griffin's. As this article itself states Griffin admitted that under the old Tyndall-era bnp he was forced to 'tow the party line' on many issues (such as 'zionism'). So prehaps a fairer way to put it would be "many accuse the bnp of habouring fascist or neo-fascist tendancies (due to their neo-fascist past) although the bnp themselves deny this and often counter-accuse their opponents of fascism, citing several legal attacks against bnp members because of their political beliefs; such as the ongoing legal case against adam walker and the banning of bnp members from the police force and other civil service positions".

All i'm asking for is that you remove the "fascism" label in the info-box, not remove all accusations of fascism. It is an appalling sight to see wikipedia stoop so low that it panders to one side of the arguement over the other, as this article seems to go out of its way to dis-credit the bnp rather than taking a factual & up-to-date approach i.e. not digging up past neo-fascist beliefs and saying they still apply even when the bnp denies and even denouces them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources provided in the article that describe the BNP as fascist are from peer-reviewed academic journals, the 'gold standard' on Wikipedia. If you can provide the same standard of sources that dispute the BNP are; fascist, ever were fascist or at which precise point they stopped being fascist, then we will have something new to debate but until then you are just rehashing the same arguments that have gone on this talk page and which have always have ended in keeping the label in place. MaesterTonberry (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So can we agree with Griffin, that an incoming BNP government would change the status of those they consider to be non indigenous "folk" communities who will not or cannot leave the country to what he termed "guests" - presumably having only the status of tourists. These people would have almost no rights to employment, health, housing, welfare or employment? The death penalty would be introduced for "treason" - which historically has proven to be a very elastic concept when applied to people who disagree with their government. Apart from members with tattoos which won't come off, the BNP has replaced overt Nazi/Fascist symbols with the Union Flag, but their policies are implicit and amount to the same aims they ever had. --Streona (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Griffin makes his true feelings very clear in this video. [2] This idea the BNP has truely reformed and become a patriotic party is rubbish. They are a disgrace to this country and that is something liberals and conservatives can agree on which is why theres many reliable sources describing them as fascist. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well let's look at the Wikipedia definition of Fascism: "Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.", none of which could be applied to the BNP. It's funny that when it says: "...claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy [...] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").", which is actually pretty much excactly what our Socialist-Social Democratic government is doing in Norway today. So is the Norwegian Labour Party-led government fascist then? Would it be appropriate to add that in the infobox? As far as I know real fascism involves (para)military marching, uniforms and dictatorships, which the BNP has nothing to do with. Further it may be argued that nobody that actually are "fascist" would secretly hide it in this giant conspiracy against the people as the left-of-center always love to claim in their fear-propaganda. And when regimes considered as "Para-fascist" (in the Wikipedia fascism-article) includes Pinochet regime in Chile, Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party regime in Iraq, Apartheid-era South Africa by the Afrikaans Nationalist Party, I think it really is a complete mockery towards both real Fascism, and against victims of fascism, when "Fascism" is in this desperate attempt attached to the current BNP. This is an encyclopedia, not a far-left fear and conspiracy factory. Very specific ideologies such as "Fascism", "Nazism", "Communism" and so on should not be put on any organization that do not expressely claim to be it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.17.18.172 (talk • contribs)

Then start as section discussing why the labels are inaccurate, they are still in current use see this, whether the label is used correctly is not up ot the editors here, it is used but a sisscusion on why it is not so with sources who say the that is is a bad description is entirely reasonable. --Nate^t/_c 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a BNP respone to specific scholarly definitions of fascist [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.17.138.43 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Look you really are wasting your time trying to get the fascist label removed because it will be opposed by several people. It would be more productive if you made suggestions on how the article could be improved. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I just see the same rehash of the same arguments that have been rejected previously. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to return like a dog unto its vomit, but the question has not been tackled of inner-party democracy within the BNP. I understand that whilst the leadership is theoretically elective, anyone actually standing against Griffin - such as Colin Auty - is apt to have themselves accused of treason & expelled and their supporters intimidated by ex- South African Policemen. It also seems as if the Leader has a dominance over policy-making & approval of membership not inconsistent with Der Fuhrerprinzip of yesteryear.--Streona (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lol that sounds like a fair and accurate analysis of the BNP to me :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"It also seems as if the Leader has a dominance over policy-making", you`re quite misinformed if you think that because Nick Griffin wants to admit non-whites into the party and he will have to seek the approval of other members to incorporate this new change on october 15th. Next time you try to assert something inform yourself a little bit more next time by a method called READING, you should try it. Especially when you try to assert something in such an arrogant and immature way.--Spitzer19 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we be more polite?, or we - or rather you- might just get blocked (again). Members of the BNP who disgree with Griffin's position have also a history of getting banned out of the BNP & their house broken into by the "Security Team" so will there be a free vote on the acceptance of non-Whites as Griffin has been advised by his lawyers (if you can call Lee Barnes that)?--Streona (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Members of the BNP who disgree with Griffin's position have also a history of getting banned out of the BNP & their house broken into by the "Security Team". Okay, IF that is true then provide them concrete examples of people who disagreed with Nick Griffin and got their houses broken by his security team.--Spitzer19 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadie Graham. --Streona (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting, it seems that she was banned for her demands that Mark Collett be removed from the BNP for making statements sympathetic to Hitler and when she was removed she had a laptop confiscated from that while seemed to have belonged to the BNP was not confiscated in an entirely legal way. That being said it is nothing compared to what a hardline fascist or Nazi group/gang(aka skinheads) like the Aryan brotherhood would do to you. It is also worth noting that Nick Griffin has disapproved of Mark Collett`s comments and his sympathies and that the BNP are not the only group that would ban someone, virtually every political movement has banned people and many have harassed former members but the context for which she was banned does suggest some fascist sympathies within the BNP. That being said, it does not seem like a sufficient basis to label them as a purely fascist movement because you see people in parties that are centre-left make comments that there are good points in Communism eventhough they are not purely Marxist or Communist. For this reason I have proposed that we label the BNP a deviation of Fascism, because even the references seem to label them as such. As a group who have fascist elements and similiarites or parallels with other fascist movements.--Spitzer19 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on - Mark Collett makes pro-Hitler, pro- Nazi statements and Sadie Graham objects, yet it is she that is thrown out of the BNP? What does that tell you ?--Streona (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The fascism label needs to be modified

I took a look at the references that assert the BNP are fascists and they do not assert that they`re fascists in an orthodox or traditional sense. This is obvious for anyone that follows the BNP because they do not quote any of the slogans from Nazi Germany or fascist Italy and they even use Winston Churchill in their political outreach. The references merely state that the BNP have traits in common with earlier fascist movements so this should be specified. I think it would appropriate to state in the information box that they are a British deviation of fascism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

JUst re-checked the Copsey article, and it definitely aligns the BNP with core fascism - the above sounds like OR and an attempt to read into the sources. Fascism is an ideology, it doesn't need to emulate German or Italian brands to be so...--Red Deathy (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated here ad nauseam (see archives). The references cited DO say that the BNP is fascist. Incidentally, the BNP's use of Winston Churchill has been condemned by his family. (But it's interesting to note that Churchill, when visiting Italy in the 1930s, said to Mussolini, "Duce, if I were Italian, I would be a fascist." Emeraude (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Red Deathy, you`re lying. The source states "He(Copsey) concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration". Hence they are a recalibration of fascism, not core fascism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"But it's interesting to note that Churchill, when visiting Italy in the 1930s, said to Mussolini, "Duce, if I were Italian, I would be a fascist." Stalin also stated "I realize how much the German people love their fuhrer and I drink to his health."By your logic it means that the British neo-communist party is a Nazi party too--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. It was a humorous aside on my part, not a political studies thesis. And Red Deathy is not lying: Copsey's point, and it is made by other commentators, is that no political ideology remains static. They all develop and change with time. Michael Billig observed, regarding Martin Walker's book on the BNP's predecessor, the National Front, that Walker's "avoidance of describing the National Front as 'fascist' may be based on an insufficient understanding of the continuities within the fascist tradition and upon the assumption that all instances of a political movement or ideology will be precisely the same." (M. BILLIG, "Fascists: a social psychological view of the National Front", p5, European Monographs in Social Psychology, 1978) Still applies.

It's also clear that you have NOT read Copsey's article but only the journal editor's abstract, and even then you have quoted selectively. To complete the sentence you have cherry picked from: "He concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity." i.e., the ideology is still fascist. Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Billig is bias in favour of Freudo-Marxism (cut from the Frankfurt School cloth). People who are actively working to subvert the West are not a neutral or reliable source for articles, especially on contested points such as this. In any case the BNP is not the NF. Can we have some non-far left academic sources which claim the BNP is ideologically "fascist"? What do Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton, Zeev Sternhell, Stanley G. Payne have to say on the issue? The fact that the party, even though it is completely legal in the UK to form a fascist party (or in fact any ideology), rejects the label is significant for it to be a violation of WP:BLP. In any case, regardless of what the party may or may not have been in the past, it is difficult to argue after Griffin's Haiderisation of the party that it is even that radical. It simply mixes populism with ethno-nationalism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

None of which invalidates Billig's observation that it is false to assume that "all instances of a political movement or ideology will be precisely the same". Emeraude (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can try that argument on the WP:BLPN if you like, but describing the BNP as fascist is the same as saying eggs are eggy, and not a BLP issue. It might be a WP:RS issue, but we have plenty of those, and there is already an WP:NPON discussion.Verbal chat 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If they were called the "British Fascist Party" you might have a point. However, they identify themselves and their agenda as "nationalists", explicity rejecting the term fascist to describe their own ideology. Its not a violation of WP:BLP to called Mussolini or Mosley fascists, because that was what their own party program, written by their hand explicity positioned themselves as. The same cannot be said of Griffin's BNP, where the term is used exclusively by some of their opponents. The BNP doesn't claim to be fascist, thus an assertion that its members are, despite no reference to said ideology in their constitution or program, is a WP:BLP issue. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All good points that are true. Even the admittedly biased reference states that although the BNP is not a "fundamental break in ideological continuity" it is nonetheless a "recalibration". In a political sense such a word translates as reform. So as you said they are not explicitly fascist like Mussolini or Mosley and the source makes a case(despite the fact it is admittedly quite biased) that they are a modification that have kept some core tendencies of fascism so they are either a group that holds parallels of fascism(which is not enough to consider them fascist but merely to assert that they have SOME fascist parallels or tendencies) or are a deviation of the orthodox fascism of Mussolini or the British fascism of Mosley--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not WP:BLP because this isn't a biography of a living person. Copsey's article is from a reputable peer reviewed journal. Recalibration, if you recaliber a rifle it remains a rifle, just firing different bullets, recalibrated fascism remains fascism, and your reading of the article is OR, the whole thrust of the article is that they remain a fascistic party. All that is required to remove the fascism tag is a reliable, verifiable third party reference to that effect.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But Spitzer19, you still haven't read the journal article have you? Stop quoting selectively and pointelessly from the journal's abstract and comment on the article itself, after you have read it. What you are doing is equivalent to describing a novel based purely on the blurb on the back cover. But, to stay just with the abstract, note that it says there has not been "a fundamental break in ideological continuity" i.e., the BNP's still fascist!!! Emeraude (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Recalibration, if you recaliber a rifle it remains a rifle", yes that is why it would be appropriate to term the BNP a deviation of fascism, still fascist but a deviation from fascism in the orthodox sense. Doing such would be in line with what the sources claim. As for the article, I am not a subscriber. If you want me to read it take a screen shot, put it on photobucket and send me the link. I have no intention on wasting money by subscribing to that site.--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So far, we have yet to see any specific claims to why the BNP is "fascist", to this point only numerous claims to why the BNP are not "fascist". But I am prepared for more of these leftist claims more or less just saying that "they just are fascist" and so on. Not allowing non-white members for instance do not at all equal a party of being "fascist", if that's the case there are numerous organizations in Britain that do not allow non-black, non-asian members. Is it a claim of intemidation or something like that? In that case the UAF are far more "fascist" than the BNP. Further, several of the users discussing here, like BritishWatcher, has shown in the topic below to have a clearly personal prejudgemental and biased view (maybe a UAF-activist even?), which means that the views presented by that person can not be taken seriously. User:Gabagool/sig 11:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? The claims are based on reliable sources, that's the start and end of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am no fan of the UAF either, from the video footage i have seen of that groups actions, they are disgraceful aswell although i share their concerns about the "English defence League" and the BNP, it is no excuse for the UAF to try and spark riots in British cities.

However as i said before i did not write the article and i only give comments here on the talk page, but when it comes to adding stuff to the article i think i take a fair stance, i did actually try arguing for the removal of the fascist label a few months ago, but its not because i think its an incorrect label for this party, was just for fairness as theres reliable sources calling Labour communist (i suspect) lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Holding personal views does not mean that one is incapable of presenting an unbiased argument. I do it all the time. I support a certain football team, so I'm biased, but it does not mean my comments are unreliable if I say that their opponents played better (or worse). What is important, whether football or politics, is not personal views but substantiated and verifiable comment. It's interesting that it's only those who want to say the BNP is not fascist who make personal attacks on the supposed personal views of others! Emeraude (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We have plenty of WP:RS that the BNP is fascist. That's the end of it as far as WP is concerned. Any removal of the term from he article will be contrary to the goals of this project, and will be viewed as disruptive editing. Verbal chat 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of this thread is not whether they are fascist or not, the sources assert they are fascist but are a deviation(or as Copsey says a "recalibration") of fascism.--Spitzer19 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

POV?

I know the BNP are a bunch of crazy racists, but this article seems very biased against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.237.132 (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly nothing more than they deserve. Do you have any suggestions as to how it could be improved to make it more neutral? Trouble with this sick party is theres nothing good to say. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think thnat reveals an POV agenda, and perhaps more nuetral editing might improve the artcile.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have strong POV on this sick group and i wont for one second hide my hate for them. However i am not responsible for this article, i did not write the article or contribute to its contents although ive given my opinion on a couple of parts of it. Its all very well people saying the article isnt neutral and it needs people with out a POV agenda, but weve all asked for examples of exactly how this article can be improved to make it more neutral. Ive yet to hear anything with the exception of removing the fascism label which is what seems to cause the most trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If people have specific POV concerns, then raise them here or a the NPOV noticeboard. Please keep accusations of agendas, etc, off this page. Verbal chat 13:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Historically the BNP (including Nick Griffin)" why is Mr Griffin mentioned this page is not about him? that seems to me a bit biased. Do any otehr politcal part pages also note that the leader of the party supports its views? Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#BNP Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to prevent mainstream views and unfortunately for the BNP mainstream academic and journalistic coverage of them is entirely negative. If there are POV issues therefore the appropriate place to raise them would be with academics and the mainstream media. People who disagree with media coverage may complain to the Press Complaints Commission which will evaluate the fairness of media coverage. However as a tertiary source WP articles cannot question the fairness of media coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is that Wikipedia has basic values to do with how a discourse is conducted and how knowledge evolves (peer review, respect for each other regardless of ethnic or national origin, politeness etc.) and the basic values of the BNP and those who apologise for it in these pages are at variance. Karl Popper described fascism as "mankind's periodic retreat from freedom & reason" and if Wikipedia is not about freedom & reason then it would not exist.--Streona (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And assuming good faith.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)