What's this about
Chamber Of Debate
6 December 11
Chamber of Debate
BNP Constitution - amendment to political objectives
SECTION 1: POLITICAL OBJECTIVES
1) The British National Party shall be a political party which shall be referred to throughout the rest of this Constitution as "the party".
2) The political objectives of the party are set out in the following Statement of Principles'.
(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.
The British National Party is a democratic nationalist party. Nationalism is an ideology of National Interest and British Nationalist Party is the party of the British National Interest.
Nationalism rejects all ideologies that do not serve the long term British National Interest. The Party rejects the incoherent classification of ideologies of the “Right” and “Left” and is only concerned with exhorting what is good and forbidding what is evil, what works and what does not.
Nationalism is in essence pragmatic and responsive to change, and strives to pass on these characteristics to citizens at large, desiring to make them robust, rational and resourceful.
The Nation is necessarily an abstract concept that encompasses the greater good of the greatest number of British citizens, in the long term, and this necessarily requires its political thinkers to think in centuries, not in terms of short-term gains or the narrow self-interest of certain groups.
The Party recognizes that furthering or protecting the interests of a particular group, class, religion or race will be divisive, although it will strive to correct any inequitable inequalities which exist and which cause resentment and strife amongst the peoples of Britain.
All people value liberty and the concomitant of this is personal responsibility. In pursuit of good government, British Nationalism will strive to strike the right balance that will be perceived to be just by the majority.
The Party believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
Should the BNP change its racially divisive constitution to something more inclusive to maximise its votes?
Our Unique Parallel Polling System
(One Member One Vote)
(One Member Multiple Votes)
AAA Awarded members only.
Page 1 of 2
Records Per Page
I'm not taking part in this poll as I have nothing but contempt for the so-called "British" National Party, and therefore couldn't care less how they change their constitution. As their policies seem to be far more pro-Islamic than pro-British, however, it does seem logical for them to remove the racial stipulations from their constitution.
To answer the question of “1in10”, I would say this:
Government makes regularly makes raids on our liberty and property. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. If you cannot bend then you will break. The government has succeeded in restricting the BNP’s right to free association. However, rubbing off a little the taint of racism should increase its share of the vote.
Does Salvation really not see why dividing British citizens between indigenous (white) and non-indigenous (non-white) is divisive?
Perhaps he means that, even if it is divisive, he has a right to do so and that he insists upon this right, even if it reminds people of Apartheid. Salvation may need reminding that Apartheid is a discredited political ideology.
No one ever got very far by insisting on his rights all the time. Why does he think the BNP has more members than the NF? “Give and take” is a far more effective practice in the world of politics, in my view.
As for the additions Salvation would like to make to the BNP constitution, it seems to me that the detail of it would be found to have a divisive effective upon its members, and that is why it was left out.
“Hostage to fortune” is a phrase that comes to mind. There was a reason why I drafted my RECOMMENDED changes in the “motherhood and apple pie” terms that I did. It is a shame that the BNP leadership could not see it.
The title of the poll itself is I feel deliberately worded to inflame.
'Should the BNP change its racially divisive constitution to something more inclusive to maximise its votes?'
"racially divisive"!!!! Like everything else in life it is in the eye of the beholder. To me the policies are not 'racially divisive' but represent a view shared by a number of the indigenous population, at least equal to the same number if not more, of the immigrant populace.
To represent a view of the order of 10% of the population is NOT divisive. It is an expression of how a group of people who share the same ideals of protecting the heritage that was bequeathed to them by their forefathers.
I am pro BNP and as such would add to the proposed constitution the following;
All monies collected by way of taxes from peoples who fall within the criteria as defined in the said constititution shall be used solely for the benefit of those persons. Any surpluses, which will now be bountiful not having to support a large immigrant populace, shall be disposed of by referundum. This includes the use of such surpluses for 'overseas' aid.
The provision of services, including transport, medical, law and order and educational, shall be provided solely for the benefit of the said indigenous populace.
Monies collected by way of taxes from non-indigenous populace shall be solely for their use to do what thay want with, including the provision of their own transport systems, education, health, law and order and anything else they see fit to maintain the standards of life from which they have fled.
Facilities shall be provided, in proportion to their percentatage of the overall population, to achieve such ends.
To enable this transition to take place use may be afforded to them of the indigenous populations facilities subject to local taxes or tolls.
Any disputes arising from such sharing of facilities shall be the subject of arbitration presided over by a council consisting of four indigenous persons and one non-indigenous person.
Pericles: As an observation, people are archaic. Generally people don't like change, especially when it's enforced upon them by a remote political elite, with whom they have little contact, very little ability to influence and an increasing contempt thereof. People have a rational desire for stability, people have always had this desire and I cannot see them ever beginning to want the reverse.
But surely the real issue is that in effect the government is determining the membership and ultimately the ideology of an opposition political party. Regardless of what you think of the BNP and their views if you tolerate this governmental interference in the right of individuals to freely associate and promote their own political ideas then you accept the end of democracy?
I am against the BNP. Many of their supporters are a potential danger to this country, and nationalism is always synnoymous with war. They should change policy, or their name to the Brutish National Party.
The BNP are their own worst enemy.
'Most Britons actually support BNP policies'
Last updated at 11:35 25 April 2006
"Overall there was 55 per cent support for BNP policies until people were informed of the party's stance, when backing dropped to 49 per cent.
More than a third of people, 37 per cent, said they would seriously consider voting for the BNP's policies in an election. But identifying the BNP with the policies caused support to fall by 17 per cent."
I guess they think they already have enough votes. Flushing away 17% of potential support they could have had is nothing to them.
That is what their leadership has been doing for the past 4 or 5 years.
I guess they are just waiting for the rest of the country to come round to their point of view and for turkeys to vote for Xmas?
Defining nation in terms of race is an archaic convention, which holds back the BNP from entering into mainstream politics.
All comments are subject to approval.
- My Profile
- Edit My Profile
- Reset My Password
- Quick Search
- Advanced Search
- Name Search
- Saved Search
- Who is Online
- List of Correspondents
- Blocked Members
- Refer a Friend
- Chamber of Debate
- Classified Advertisements
- AAA Award
What's this about
, All Rights Reserved