BNP To Allow Non-Whites!

linky

More at the link.

I'm actually aware of non-whites who vote BNP, on the basis they're sick of immigration, and it wasn't that long ago I heard an Asian shopkeeper complaining about foreigners not speaking English Don't get much more integrated than that.

The Equalities act has already shut down a women's refuge down south, and had the Black Police Association admit they would have to allow whites to join, and now it's made the BNP have to allow non-whites.

Funny old world.

:salia:

It would be almost impossible to organise, but I would love to see various non-white people (and whites who are against BNP policies) joining up just to annoy the white supremacist retards.

An explicitly all white political party?



I can't properly express the magnitude of outrage there'd be if we had a similar party over here. It'd be gold mine for professional victims groups.

Almost as shocking as an all black police organisation

We're a bit more open on things like this, the likes of the NF have openly existed for some time.

The equalities laws are having lots of unintended consequences, and whilst the BNP having to let in non-whites is the height of amusement, battered womens shelters having to close is not even close to funny.

Er, there are similar parties over there, are there not? The American Nazi party and so forth.

Yeah, the only difference is that they aren't doing a good job of pulling in some normal people as well though.

This is all bullshit anyhow. If a non-reflectable joins the BNP there would be driven out within a day through institutional racism, irrespective of what the party constitution says.

The American Nazi party? Seems to me anonymity, laughability, and idiocy have been effectively suppressing the Fourth Reich for decades(?) now.

This is just a gimmick. The BNP gets votes because they're an all-white party and for years their policies centred on 'encouraging' non-whites to leave this country. By removing the all-white attribute, they will lose votes from their mainstream voters. Can't see the BNP agreeing to this. And certainly can't see non-whites rushing to join them either.

^They haven't a choice, legally they have to allow non-whites in.

The gimmick is courtesy of one Harriet Harman.

This is the opening bit from the linked article -

Excluding gender from the equation seems fair.

^Given how women are by far at greater risk of abuse, using the equality to law withdraw grants from single-sex charities is insane.

Male victims of abuse are under-represented, but the solution to that isn't to withhold grants from female-only charities, which is what is happening.

Families are being placed into positions of having to stay with abusive partners, or go homeless, as support is being removed from them. There's no way on this planet that can be considered right.

I'm by no means familiar with this situation but this bit:

Sounds like gender (which quite a few people say is indefinable anyway) will no longer be an issue. Not that the change in policy will result in splitting the money equally along gender lines. The money still goes to the victims, only now some may be men.

^ I see no problem in saying, you have to take men as well. They might need more funding if demand increases but that's another argument.

Problem is, it is an issue.

Existing shelters are designed to be single sex, and many of the charities target single-sex. That's an awful lot of changes that need doing, and whilst those changes are happening it means battered women have less support.

And I know from experience that the last thing battered women want to see in such accommodation is a man.

Yep, it's true.

To me, in this case equality doesn't mean opening the doors of a particular building for both sexes, but rather providing the same service to both sexes. i.e. a battered bloke refuge, if the need is there.

At the moment it seems that in order to make things more accessible for all, things are actually being restricted.

Not seeing where making shelters co-ed is part of the deal.

Yeah change tends to suck, any ideas on potentially smoothing the transition?

That statement makes for quite the blanket.

Anyway, I'm still not seeing where making shelters co-ed is part of the deal.

Exactly.

Law of unintended consequences for you, Harmans a horrendous old bag and her little pogrom against men is pretty nasty.

It was like when she kicked off about Punternet, you;d think she'd have been equally scathing about sites dealing with rent boys

From the article:

The shelter is being closed because it doesn't also cater for men, which implicitly means that same-sex shelters are in breach of this law.

Repealing the stupid law would make for a fine start.

You get harmed by something, you develop a visceral fear of it. The whole point of these refuges is to provide a safe, secure place for these women to start to rebuild their lives, and placing reminders of abuse in the safe place stops it feeling safe.

Reminds me of a line from the John Larroquette Show.

John, worried about his son joining a religious cult, asks the black guy (Daryll Mitchell) who runs the bus stop lunch counter to infiltrate the group and bring his son to him.

The black guy dons the all white robe and hood with only his face exposed.

He walks by the local bum who exclaims

"My god! They've integrated the Klan"

This is an opinion voiced by the article's author.

Interesting claim, maybe worth exploring in a different thread.

More than not hearing any evidence that all current shelters are to become co-ed, there is nothing suggesting all men should be considered reminders of abuse.

Gotta say from this outsiders point of view this reads like political hyperbole and rhetoric designed to elicit pity for a cause.

Nobody wants women to suffer, and nobody wants battered women forced to live with their abusers.

Firstly, many many things don't have to worry about equality. There are a lot of jobs, for example, in Womens Aid, that have a note at the bottom saying that the job opening is only for women, and some sort of exclusion/exemption act applies, so they are not breaking any discrimination laws. The case above is simply a sad case of those working in the Charity either not knowing their legal rights, or not acting to sort it out sooner. Many charities have this sort of problem, because it's very hard to get highly qualified people for less pay.

Secondly RE: BNP

"a battered bloke refuge"



Must be filled with wishy washy metrosexuals like Dan Leach.

No real man would allow himself to be abused much less go to a shelter for it.

Yeah guy. Dan's not a metro, just a fag.

Are they really comparable? Most people have never heard of anything called the American Nazi party and you're not going to find them on any ballots. In the States, "party" refers to Republicans and Democrats.

I didn't say that they were big or significant, just that they exist.
That said, the size and strength of the BNP, though growing, should not be overstated.

Nope, it was is what has actually happened

The money has been redirected to outreach programs, to satisfy equality laws as per the original article, causing the refuge to close.

Here's some more info on councils telling refuges to help men or lose finding

And it's not so much they develop a phobia of men, but wish to feel secure away from men. I've only dealt with 4 battered women, but all 4 felt comfortable in same sex accommodation and wouldn't wish to be staying somewhere with men.

It's not about wanting women to suffer, it's about laws being passed and having unintended consequences. Given the amount of legislation the government passes, things like are bound to happen, and if I went fishing I'm sure I could find examples with other laws.