(2) Are only the BNP’s political opponents allowed to make this definition?

(3) The BNP receives more votes than every socialist/communist/marxist party in Britain all put together.

(4) The socialist USSR banned trade unions, and independent trade unions are presently banned in Cuba (you can only join the government’s union).

(5) The regimes of Hitler and Mussolini both had vibrant trade unions.

(6) Why do marxists assume that unions must be left wing? Trade unions existed in the middle ages as Craftsmen Guilds, centuries before marx was born.

(7) Is the real reason why left wing trade union leaders don’t want BNP members is because they fear the BNP will win so much support they will take the unions over?

(8) Is the moral pontificating from union leaders all just a show, are they really more concerned with keeping their corrupt financial gravy trains going than with any supposed “threat” from BNP members?

(9) When union leaders claim that the BNP are a “threat” to the union, do they not really mean that the BNP are a threat to their own PERSONAL interests?

(10) Is it true that trade unions are economic entities, and NOT political entities, and it is no more relevant that a person is a member of the BNP than if such an individual were a member of his local rock climbing club?

(11) Have not marxists infiltrated and taken over the unions in order to use them as vehicles of marxist propaganda?

(12) If unions are always left wing, then as an example, how come there is a huge plaque on Euston Road outside Madame Tussauds in memory to the railwaymen who built the first section of underground tube in the world (from Farringdon Rd to Bishopsgate) with two huge fascist symbols on the plaque?

Answers on a postcard please.

In a conversation with my girlfriend I talked about a hypothetical disillusioned guy that joins the BNP on ultimately misplaced but not overtly xenophobic or racist grounds. You make every effort to ostracise him from society and I fear you only push him down the path we don’t wish him to take. This is of course totally hypothetical and I don’t presume to think BNP members are all innocent fools that simply chose the wrong party when they meant to join the Tories (or hell, Labour these days), but how many Labour members continue to support the party simply because they are “the party of the working class” even if latest policies start to run contrary to that relationship?

But like you say, Tony, maybe it’s not worth entering that debate.

Got to try your best!

“Political organisations are put together for a purpose – not for the sole purpose of allowing people to join so the whole project can go to pot.”

Perhaps I am arguing the wrong track, let unions have who they may or may not want, perhaps a campaign to have parts of employment law modernised would be better. They should be brought up to date so that not being a member of a union didn’t give you a tremendous disadvantage in consultations and negotiations with your employer.

“There is no provision in law to outlaw discrimination on grounds of political affiliation and, in the case of the BNP and other far right political parties, unions may quite reasonably conclude that as these parties espouse objectives that run contrary to those of trade unions vis-a-vis their commitment to equality and non-discrimination, membership of such a party is incompatible with membership of a trade union.”
We could have a blazing discourse on how it is almost impossible to determine any characteristics of someone’s beliefs solely from their membership of a political party. X is a conservative they could be passionately europhile or europhobe, Y is in Labour are they for or against 42 days detention? But I’m not sure it is worth it any more.

Trade unions are membership organisations.

Membership organisations have a general right, in law, to regulate their membership and define both qualifying criteria for membership and rules of conduct for members and to exclude from membership anyone who fails to adhere to the criteria/rules subject only to provision in law which preclude discrimination on grounds of race, gender, disability, etc.

This is true of all membership organisations, from the smaller community group to the largest mass membership organisations (political parties, trade unions, large charities).

Trade unions used to be a special case back in the days of the closed shop, but as that no longer applies, there is no reason to treat unions any differently to other membership organisations.

There is no provision in law to outlaw discrimination on grounds of political affiliation and, in the case of the BNP and other far right political parties, unions may quite reasonably conclude that as these parties espouse objectives that run contrary to those of trade unions vis-a-vis their commitment to equality and non-discrimination, membership of such a party is incompatible with membership of a trade union.

And that’s all she wrote for BNP members.

Because closed shops no longer exist (and are, in fact, illegal) there is no reason to require unions to accept individuals as members where their political views are fundamentally opposed to the core values of the union, any more than any other organisation should be required to accept someone as a member in similar circumstances, which is the substance of the European Court’s ruling.

You seem to have a pretty poor perception of the Lib Dems if you believe that they wouldn’t fight and campaign against illiberal elements in their own party solely because of some over-arching liberal attitude. For a start you ignore their constitution and the “ideologically consistent” processes they have in place to root out those that are not supporters of their belief.

Membership may be refused by an enrolling body on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) material disagreement, evidenced by conduct, with the fundamental values and
objectives of the Party;
(b) the admission of the applicant would be likely to bring the Party into disrepute; or
(c) membership of another political party in Great Britain.

Any person aggrieved by such a refusal shall, subject to having exhausted the internal
procedures of the relevant State Party, have a right of appeal pursuant to Article 14 on any
matter relating to the interpretation of this Constitution.

3.7 Membership may be revoked by a Local Party (or, where appropriate, a Specified
Associated Organisation which acted as the enrolling body) or a State Party on one or more
of the following grounds:

(a) material disagreement, evidenced by conduct, with the fundamental values and
objectives of the Party;
(b) conduct which has brought, or is likely to bring, the Party into disrepute;
(c) standing against the candidate of the Party in any Parliamentary or European
Parliamentary election;
(d) standing against the candidate of the Party in any local authority election; and
(e) membership of or support for another political party in Great Britain.

Membership shall not be revoked unless the member has been notified of the grounds on
which revocation is to be considered and has been given a reasonable opportunity to reply.
Where paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of this Article 3.7 applies, membership shall be
automatically and immediately suspended, and in other cases of urgency the body with
powers of revocation may suspend membership while revocation is being considered. Any
person aggrieved by such a revocation shall, subject to having exhausted the internal procedures of the relevant State Party, have a right of appeal pursuant to article 14 on any
question relating to the interpretation of this Constitution.

So lets stop with this childish idea that you can’t oppose and weed out detrimental elements without blanket and ineffectual bans.

No one seems to have answered my point earlier.

Political organisations are put together for a purpose – not for the sole purpose of allowing people to join so the whole project can go to pot.

Let me put it this way – if I was organising a coalition to achieve an aim, and some suspect people joined that org which may jeapordise my mission – I’d turf them out without a thought.

Its all very well being ideologically consistent Tony and Lee. I suggest asking Libdem party members what would happen if the scenario I mentioned above actually happened. Either the party would not survive, or the “ideologically pure” wing would not survive.

And I’m sure I’ve made my views clear about people who want to be ideologically pure at the expense of any political achievement.

Maybe…

….but to honest after I’d checked him out and seen some of the crap he’s posted elsewhere, I came to the conclusion that I just couldn’t be arsed with the inevitable game of scumbag whack-a-mole we’d have to get into if we let him get too settled.

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. His comments were so incongruous & unreadable that I wondered whether they were fed through Babelfish several times, or automatically generated like some kind of Twat-O-Tron on acid. Fans of unintentionally hilarious trolling will forever miss his unique voice, but I hope we can go on in the knowledge that Dirty European Socialist still graces us with his presence.

As for why…

1. He was already starting to the push his luck vis-a-vis racism, and

2. I did a few checks on him via Google and discovered that he’s an anti-semitic scumbag.

Really? Trade Unions used to oppose female participation in the (skilled) workforce, after all…

I’m not sure what my position on the original issue is – leaning towards Lee’s view – but it’s not exactly controversial to categorise ‘joining the BNP’ as ‘doing something racist’…

Which is exactly the sort of thing I was describing as illiberal.

Neil “Would it be fairer for each case to be assessed on its own merits to determine whether a person’s party membership is actively damaging to the movement as a whole?”

No what would be *fair* is if someone gets thrown out the organisation concerned if and when they do something racist rather than just because they belong to a political party. I think this applies to unions, the police, prison officers, girl guides or any other group.

Similarly it’s why I hate the idea of symbolically “eradicating” the BNP, because it tells people “it’s ok, we’re not Nazi’s, see…we kicked them out!”. Every liberal and socialist then breathes easily and goes “well isn’t that great, we can all sleep well now”. Trouble is that you’ve not eradicated anything, you’ve not stopped the potential for negligence or abuse, and you’ve simply spun your way out of a problem through PR. The BNP isn’t allowed in to the police, for example? Well it’s not as if that’s helped the claims of institutional racism almost every year/other year is it?

The only solution to the problems these organisations face is to sort out their procedures properly and thoroughly, and in doing so they don’t need to ban organisation from their midst en masse.

No, I’m sorry, it’s the symbolic nature of saying no to the BNP which is, to my mind, the biggest problem of all, it protects the unions from ensuring proper and lasting change is achieved. That’s why I don’t think I can support Section 18.

In organisations like the police, the prison service or trade unions, bigotry is divisive and destructive and something the leaders of these groups place a great premium on eradicating. To that end, banning BNP members from their ranks is one of the greatest symbolic thing they can do, even if it is only a quick fix. Does that decision, by itself, remove all unsavoury characters? As both you and thomas have pointed out, of course not, and nor should it detract from the need for greater vigilance and better powers of persuasion. It’s more a statement of intent to demonstrate that these are the kinds of values that are anathema to their movement.

Would it be fairer for each case to be assessed on its own merits to determine whether a person’s party membership is actively damaging to the movement as a whole? Possibly, but such a process would inevitably become bureaucratised and that would require the kind of expenditure their leaders are not inclined to commit to.

And so that leads us to the messy, conflicting and sometimes contradictory situation we have now. I think unions should have greater freedoms, and that’s why I support Section 18, but I’m certainly not blind to the problems inherent in the unions exercising that freedom.

But…for example, joining the police force isn’t just a case of putting in your application form and getting handed a warrant card and helmet. You have to show you’re physically able to do the job AND psychologically so.

Now, again, if there are deficiencies in the process that allow the psychological stage to ignore someone joining the job who is inadequate to provide the necessary balance to the tasks they’ll be presented with…then that is a problem with the process.

It’s grandstanding, and in the case of the police it’s worse…it’s one party essentially deciding how much another political party can have an involvement in the state, regardless of their real credentials and beliefs. It’s pointless, furthermore, as you don’t have to be a member of the BNP to be a racist, in fact you don’t have to be a member of anything to be prejudiced against “chavs”, or maybe you’re a police officer from the working classes yourself and don’t particularly get along with these fuckwit toffs getting their own way all the time?

If these things are the case, the recruitment process should be robust enough, given the nature of the job, to weed out those not correct for the police force…and then, further to that, there should be a robust disciplinary procedure that ensures that should bad eggs fall through the gaps (which they are likely to) they are dealt with appropriately.

I’m not saying this is how it actually works…but like with my argument on immigration, banning political party members from taking up jobs, and joining organisations and associations, does not tackle the actual issues that should be tackled… are we organising in such a way that everyone is treated equally and fairly? Are we ensuring that sensitive jobs are only taken up by people with the appropriate constitution to carry them out without prejudice? These are the things we should be concentrating on improving and perfecting…not what this blog article is trying to do.

So because “we”, as the majority, feel “disgusted” about someone’s views we should shun them and shut them out? I mean I know Sunny’s views on this and I’ve disagreed with him about hypocritical censorship of our political opponents before, but ultimately a lot of this argument seems to be the infliction of a majority held prejudice against another…we’re seemingly comfortable with this because we’re in a majority, but what if we were (as liberals) in the minority and getting forced out of perfectly legitimate associations because a majority of fascists wanted us silenced instead? I’m fairly certain there would be outcries among the, albeit in this example small, liberal population.

Hypocrisy, that’s all it is. We believe we are the ones with the more moral/ethical/justified political ideology but it is arrogance to assume that us believing this makes it a universal and incontrovertible “right path” that gives us carte blanche to treat those with opposing views with disrespect, whether or not they would treat us the same way.

I would urge someone to answer me as to why it is supposedly possible, in unions, for a BNP person that isn’t prepared to do their rep job objectively to stay in that rep job…just as if someone wasn’t being a good representative if they were a Labour member, or a Tory, or whatever. Or are we just going to argue about some hypotheticals that are only good arguments on paper but in reality can, at worst, point to the democractic and disciplinary structure of Trade Unions being left in need of reform for ALL cases of neglect and abuse, not just for neglect and abuse instigated by the BNP.

Once we’ve ascertained whether or not Unions need new rules to deal with people not doing their job, BNP or otherwise, then the whole debate only once more falls back to one issue…why BNP members shouldn’t have the same benefits afforded to them through ability to join a trade union as anyone else and how it is liberal to put one person’s free association above another.

I love debating theory as much as anyone else, but the reality is you’re using up time to defend fascists in the name of liberalism. As Sunny said, just imagine if a fascist joined your local branch (LibDem/Tory/Labour/Greens), community group or parents/teachers association, would you think the higher purpose of liberal theory would override the feeling of disgust?

I know, I’m sure they’re nice people really.

You know what would be really funny to watch? Fascists slowing entrying the Libdems and taking over the party. The party would just collapse because there would be a big internal fight over whether it was “liberal” to expel a bunch of fascists who wanted to subvert it towards their own ends.

They’d never be able to resolve the problem and the third political party would be finished.

It also falls under the issue of unions managing their codes of practice, accountability, transparancy and…ultimately…democratic procedures. You don’t have to be a Fascist to be a shit rep, and I would hope unions have processes in place to remove those from positions of power that ultimately abuse or neglect them.