As long as people who have travelled to Australia to live, in the last 200 years or so. As long as they and their descendants live they will never be INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS.. the only people who have that claim are the ABORIGINALS….
That is the same with the INDIGENOUS PEOPLES of AMERICA. The immigrants from two hundred years ago, will never be INDIGENOUS of America. The people with that claim are the American Indians They are the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF AMERICA, and NO-ONE ELSE
The Indigenous population are the ORIGINAL PEOPLE of that country.. Likewise the INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of britain are “WHITE CAUCASIAN” ALL the immigrants wherever they come from will never be INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of this country. That, as much as you may not want to hear it, is a fact.?

Politicians like to been seen to act. That’s why you get a “war on drugs” and a “war on terrorism”. Both of these are aimed at curtailing the supply of what is deemed dangerous. The same applies for the BNP membership policy issue. It is basically a “war on the BNP”. But as we know full well for the failure of anti-terrorism and drug policies, dealing with the supply side is ineffective because, as long as there is a demand, there will be someone willing to supply.

Much more effective would be dealing with the demand side. In drugs this amounts to education and recovery policies. In anti-terrorism it amounts to measures that support groups that are vulenrable to etremists. With regard to the BNP or any other far-right group, it should amount to social intergation policy at the regional/city/council level. Simple things like having community evenings; ensuring a mix of populations in school; activities that highlight how much people from different backgrounds have in common. It could be something as simple as a neighbourhood food festival, where everyone brings something from their own culture, which can lead to sharing of stories/experiences etd.

The point is to let people realise that we are all essentially the same – black, white, british, polish, asian… When people understand other culture and why, for example, an immigrant had moved to the UK, they become much less likely to blame them for all the bad things that happen in their own lives and, therefore, become less succeptible to extremist views.

[Excellent]Mr Burns[/Mr Burns]

*pats BNP troll on the head*

We are being destroyed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NtSd0EOF3w

Who else to the British people have that will listen to their concerns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxvqBT2aJnc

Please forgive me if I don’t leave my real name, I have children and I don’t want my windows Bricked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alsBscnVe-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PliODvEGuxI

One point I’m not clear on – what liabilities do the BNP face if they get taken to court and lose the case there – significant financial penalties or just a legal slap on the wrist?

I think the EHRC action is absolutely correct.

Can we expect you to come up with solutions to destroy far-left parties as well?

Why on earth would I need to do that?

You obviously know nothing about far left politics or you’d already know that if you put three Trots in a room for more than half and hour you’ll end up with two new political parties and a committed entryist.

So actually this isn’t about the rights and wrongs of racial discrimination or freedom of assocation, it’s about trying to destroy the BNP through the courts rather than defeating them in debate. Can we expect you to come up with solutions to destroy far-left parties as well?

I would expect the liberal-left to be above this sort of authoritarian nonsense – “we don’t like what they say so we’ll change the law to bugger them over”.

We need something more liberal and inclusive than simply being accepted by a majority, especially if that definition is backed up by the powers of the State.

It’s not for the State, or even a majority of the populace, to decide who is British.

The complete nutters with SS rune tattoos?

The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community

Quite what the buggering hell the Anglo-Saxon Norse Folk Community is I don’t know.

I’ve got that pegged for a misprint that should read ‘Volkish’.

Folkish?

You’re rather the missing the point on the issue of clarifying the nature of what it means to be British, inasmuch as what the courts have been asserting on the question of ethnicity is an open-ended definition of Britishness.

In short, to become British you simply have to adopt and adhere to British values (and citizenship, naturally) – whatever those happen to be – and be commonly accepted as British by British people.

That’s hardly the most proscriptive regime you’ll even encounter, is it?

1) The question of whether any non-white person would ever apply for a job with the BNP is immaterial as far as the law in concerned, given that EHRC has the power to initiate proceedings in its own right without recourse to finding an individual plaintiff.

That said, a better solution would be one in which the BNP were prohibited from drawing down EU funds on account of non-compliance with anti-discrimination law, which is matter that a British MEP really should be taking up in the European Parliament.

2) The assumption that forcing the BNP into making a change in its membership policies would either have no impact at all, or even further legitimise the party fails to take into account the corrosive impact such a ruling would have on its existing membership.

The BNP has already lost a considerable number of members as a result of Griffin’s decision to tone down the party’s racist rhetoric in public and, in particular, over the switch to targeting Muslims rather than Jews as the party’s primary hate figures. Forcing the BNP to rescind its ‘no blacks’ rule would only exacerbate existing tensions and create even greater internal divisions and dissension, and all the more so if Griffin knuckled under rather than fight this all the way in the courts and huge expense to the party in legal costs.

A legal definition will be open to legal challenge: if we accept that ‘Britishness’ is something with legally defined parameters, what happens if the bogeyman stories the mainstream parties are pushing come true and a party currently running a quarter of one percent of councils sweeps to power next time: are you prepared to accept THEIR ‘legal’ definition of Britishness because it’s The Law?

The lack of a strict definition of Britishness is a strength, not a weakness. It’s something which should always be in flux, blurred at the edges where it shades into other identities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/25/jewish-school-race-religion

…which seems to be a further affirmation of Lord Fraser’s argument.

that predates recorded history

Absolutely – but the only legal interpretation of ‘predating recorded history’ that has hitherto been used in the English courts has been the concept of ‘time immemorial’. That’s a side issue, as a look at the attempts of the BNP to define indigenous inhabitants of the UK shows it to be nonsense on stilts…