26th October 2012: Andrew Brons has sent the following Press Statement to all our national newspapers, all church newspapers and to those media outlets that cover in his Yorkshire and the Humber Euro Consistuency.
Michael Black and John Morgan v. Susanne Wilkinson
"This case has been portrayed as one about discrimination and homophobia, which apparently means fear of sameness. My view is that the case involves the difficulties encountered when legislatures codify human rights that are potentially inconsistent with each other. For the record, I am opposed to the persecution of homosexuals, Christians or anybody else.
"This case seemed to involve a need to decide between competing rights in the field of human rights legislation. On the one hand Messrs. Black and Morgan relied on the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which would seem to have been inspired in part by Section 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. On the other hand, Mrs. Wilkinson's defence seems to have been inspired by Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which provides the right, "in public or in private to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance". There is an identical provision in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which enshrines a right to, "manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance".
The question is which right should take precedence: the rights of Messrs Morgan and Black not to be the objects of discrimination or Mrs. Wilkinson's right to be able to practise and observe her religion? It would seem that discrimination law will always take precedence over law relating to the freedom of religion - at least when the religion is only Christianity and not a religion that has a more favoured status!
It is true that discrimination law has been codified as part of the ordinary law, whereas freedom of religion has not. However, this shows that Parliament and Ministers regard protection from discrimination as more important that the right to practise one's religion. It is my view that Mrs. Wilkinson's right to practise and observe her religion in her own home should have taken precedence over any secular rights provided by Parliament and supranational bodies.
I have asked the same question on different occasions, to a variety of experts, in both of my two committees in the European Parliament: AFCO - the Constitutional Affairs Committee; and LIBE - the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee. The question concerns the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The question was: "What happens if there should be a conflict between different competing rights within the Charter of Fundamental Rights or between the Charter of Fundamental Rights* and the European Convention on Human Rights**. I have never received a satisfactory reply - that is one that answers the question.
* In 2007 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, stated erroneously, in the House of Commons, that the United Kingdom had an 'opt-out' from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as a result of Protocol 30 being attached to the Lisbon Treaty when the United Kingdom agreed to it.. In the case of 'NS' (an asylum seeker) 2011 (by the Advocate General and by the Court of Justice), it has been held that the United Kingdom did not and does not have an 'opt out', although the ECJ did not explain exactly what was the effect of Protocol 30.
**The United Kingdom has been a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights since 1950 but it became part of UK law only in October 2000 as a result of the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. The European Union, as a whole, will, as a result of the Lisbon Treaty, become a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Over the last sixteen or eighteen months I have been marginalised to such an extent, in what is left of the British National Party, that I have been expelled in all but name.
Employment law recognises a concept of constructive dismissal which means that the employee cannot be expected to remain in employment and can regard his or her employment at an end. My position in the rump of the BNP is analogous to that of an employee who has been constructively dismissed.
My considerable contributions in support of the Party’s position, in the European Parliament and its committees, are routinely ignored in the Party’s media, just as routinely as they are ignored in the Establishment’s media.
The current Chairman of the rump BNP has described me in a text to his attack dogs as ‘vermin’. More recently, he described me as a ‘state agent’ – a description he attached to me twenty-six years ago but which obviously did not apply when he appointed me as the lead candidate in Yorkshire for the European elections.
It is quite clear that if I should wish to assert my rights of membership of the Rump, my wishes would be ignored and my rights denied. You do not respect the membership rights of somebody you have denounced as a ‘state agent’ – however cynical and dishonest that denunciation should be.
I have so far remained within the Rump Party, because I am aware that I was elected because I headed a party list and not because of any personal qualities recognised by the electorate.
However, it is also clear that 80 or 90% of the Party’s membership, activists and former officials have left it and disappeared in several different directions. The current rump Chairman bears the heavy responsibility for having destroyed the Party of which he is still nominally head.
Furthermore, his treatment of me has released me of any obligations that I might have owed to him and his dwindling bunch of supporters.
I shall regard myself from this moment as being no longer a member of the British National Party but as a former member who has beenconstructively expelled.
I shall, of course, continue to promote the policies on which I was elected in debates in the European Parliament and in releases for the British and foreign media.
5th October 2012: Last week Andrew Brons wrote to the editor of the Daily Express concerning a report that appeared in that newspaper.
I find it astounding that the UKIP leadership feels that it can criticise Baroness Ashton for her poor attendance record (22nd September 2012) at EU Commission meetings, when UKIP’s attendance record in the European Parliament and its committees is the worst of any political group.
I hold no brief for Baroness Ashton, for the position of High Representative that she holds or for the European Union. I would withdraw the United Kingdom from the EU tomorrow. However, part of the responsibility for her attendance record is the Lisbon Treaty, which insists that the position of High Representative should be coupled with a seat on the Commission.
Andrew Brons, British National Party MEP, Yorkshire and the Humber.
5th October 2012: Last week, Andrew Brons sent the following letter to the editors of Britain's national newspapers and those media outlets covering his Yorkshire and the Humber Euro Constituency.
"In many European countries, historians and others can be prosecuted and imprisoned for refuting the scale or occurrence of atrocities. Most recently the French have enacted a law making it a criminal offence to claim that the killing by Turkey of Armenians in 1915 was not genocide.
"The underestimation of atrocities might be considered reprehensible – at least if done knowingly - but it is an area in which the law in this country does not intrude. I am content to leave history to the historians.
"However, I would draw a legal line against those who would argue that atrocities were justified or would be justified. Eric Hobsbawm, the recently deceased Marxist historian, crossed that line. To the question of whether the deaths of fifteen or twenty million might have been justified to establish Communism, he replied,"Yes".
"David Irving, the right-wing historian, has been banished by the academic world and the media, although he has never said or implied that Nazi atrocities were justified. Yet, Eric Hobsbawm, the justifier of mass murder, is described as, 'one of the greatest British historians of his age'."
Andrew Brons, British National Party MEP, Yorkshire and the Humber.
15th September 2012: At the beginning of last week, Andrew Brons sent the following letter to the editors of our national newspapers and those in his Yorkshire and the Humber Euro Constituency.
So Professor Les Ebdon, the Government’s Higher Education Access Adviser, would like to see the proportion of people from the poorest backgrounds going to the best universities to be equal to the proportion of people from the richest backgrounds going to those universities.
If the proportions are different, there are two possible explanations. One is that the ‘poor but able’ are being discriminated against or are suffering from some educational disadvantage connected with their upbringing. The other is that after four generations of equality of opportunity, the families of the higher professionals have become reservoirs of inherited high ability.
Of course, our goal of equality of opportunity has always been an elusive one. The existence of able adults in poorly-paid occupations is a testimony to its imperfections. However, that is far from saying that there is no correlation between occupational group and academic potential. Furthermore, to pretend that any correlation is attributable entirely to discrimination and disadvantage would be a dangerous delusion.
It must be our objective to reduce the imperfections in our system of equality of opportunity to the barest minimum. No able children with high potential must be allowed to slip through the net.
However, I am not happy to see candidates with poorer A level grades being admitted to the best universities at the expense of candidates with higher grades, simply because of perceived disadvantage. I would prefer to see all candidates for the best universities having to sit an IQ test the results of which might mitigate differences in A level grades.
11th September 2012: At the end of last week Andrew Brons wrote to the editor's of Britain's national newspapers and those covering his Yorkshire and Humber Euro Constituency.
In his letter he said:
"It is astounding that lawyers representing the British Government at the European Court of Human Rights should suggest that Christians ought to desist from wearing their crosses or seek alternative employment. This is a mirror image of the insistence of the Nazis that Jews living in the Netherlands had to wear yellow stars.
"The response in the Netherlands was for ordinary Dutch people to wear yellow stars in sympathy. Perhaps the general population of the United Kingdom, whether or not they are committed Christians, might choose to wear crosses at work, in solidarity with those who are being persecuted for their Christian beliefs. This might be particularly appropriate when their own government has revealed its complicity in their treatment.
Yours faithfully Andrew Brons British National Party MEP Yorkshire and the Humber."
9th September 2012: Last week Andrew Brons responded to a report in the Sunday Telegraph concerning the plight of Professor John Tulloch.
He wrote the following letter to the editor of that newspaper.
The tragic case of Professor John Tulloch has arisen because British law confuses two related but distinct concepts: citizenship and nationality. He has been denied citizenship because he and his immediate forebears were born in India, serving the Crown, despite being entirely of British descent. However, he is self-evidently of British nationality because he is of British descent.
Any Eastern European, even during the Soviet era, would have explained that nationality is a natural status, acquired by descent from one’s forebears, whilst citizenship is a legal status, acquired by place of birth or by legal procedure.
Professor Tulloch’s forebears have been, it appears, from the indigenous inhabitants of this country as far back as records exist. If he lacks British citizenship, there is something wrong with our citizenship law.
Millions of people can flaunt their British citizenship, despite not having a single indigenous British ancestor. It is outrageous that an indigenous Briton is denied that right.
Andrew Brons British National Party MEP Yorkshire and the Humber
6th September 2012: On Tuesday morning, Andrew Brons sent a letter to the editor of the The Times newspaper in response to an article by Libby Purves.
I am afraid that Libby Purves reveals a little too much about herself for her comfort or ours (3rd September).
She might know, and excuse, people who are filled with loathing or simply indifference when they encounter people of different races. My reaction when I meet people of other backgrounds is respect for difference and a determination that it should not be blurred by globalism.
Miss Purves is perfectly entitled to describe me and other members and ex-members as ‘wicked’ for holding the views that we do. I am sure that she would see herself as ‘saintly’ to the same degree.
To describe a whole undifferentiated category of people as ‘wicked’ would, in other circumstances, be seen as an incitement to hatred and would result in a successful prosecution. Miss Purves was wise to avoid traducing a category defined by race or religion.
Her belief that human relations are a function of unfair economic conditions provides us with a tiny but unmistakeable clue as to her ideological perspective.
Andrew Brons British National Party MEP Yorkshire and the Humber
29th August 2012: On Monday, Andrew Brons wrote to the editor of the Daily Telegraph in response to an article by Damien Green, the Minister for Immigration.
It is not sufficient for Damien Green to show that multi-racialism has engulfed this country (27th August) to conclude that it was desirable and a cause for celebration. We cannot infer a prescription from a description.
Within a mere sixty-five years, large parts of the major towns and cities of our country have been transformed into parts of the Third World with all of its charms and attractions.
It would take Voltaire’s Pangloss to conclude: “that things cannot be otherwise than they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end”.
Andrew Brons British National Party MEP Yorkshire and the Humber
23rd August 2012: Last week, Andrew Brons sent the following letter to the Editor of the Keighley News.
Mr. Latif is, of course, quite right to condemn all sexual abuse of children and young persons, regardless of the ethnic origin of the abusers and the abused.
However, most sexual abuse, among the general population, takes the form of individual males using the opportunity to abuse somebody within their reach – often within their extended family. Group abuse of children in the general population is comparatively rare.
There is no doubt that group grooming of children and young persons chosen from a different ethnicity and religious background is carried out disproportionately by Asian gangs of Muslim background. The different background of the victims is important for two reasons. The perpetrators have been brought up to view their co-religionists as being entitled to much greater respect than Non-Muslims; they would have been inhibited from treating Muslim girls and young women in the same way. If they had chosen to abuse Muslims, the reaction from the Muslim community would, quite rightly, have been swift and unforgiving.
There was, of course, a consensus of silence on this issue, not just within the Muslim community but among most politicians, the media, social services and the police. When the Chairman of our Party made a reference to the problem in a speech, the reaction of West Yorkshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service was to prosecute him for incitement to racial hatred. It was the failure of that prosecution and the attendant publicity that lifted the lid on a widespread crime, to which the Establishment had turned a blind eye.
Yours faithfully, Andrew Brons, British National Party MEP, Yorkshire and the Humber."
Comment from Andrew:
The Editor did not publish my letter. When he was challenged by Dr. James Lewthwaite, the Editor said that my letter broke IPCC guideline in three places (quite an achievement for a letter of only four paragraphs) and was probably illegal too. As people can see, I have used moderate language throughout, given praise to the Asian correspondent and to Muslims generally, when it has been appropriate.
I used the word 'disproportionately' rather than 'overwhelmingly'. I wrote of Muslims' greater respect for their co-religionists rather than less respect for people of other faiths and the indigenous population.
However, it appears that to have a letter on this issue published in the Keighley News, it is necessary to suppress and distort the truth.
This was the letter from ARAFAT LATIF of the Madinah Mosque in Keighley.
Grooming is an issue all communities face
Firstly, congratulations to our police in Keighley for a tremendous job on the EDL protest. It was a well co-ordinated effort. We were glad to see the back of racists without any trouble. We want to point out that Muslims ,just like the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or any moral human being are appalled and utterly disgusted by the grooming issue. If proven guilty, we ask for the toughest penalties – so perhaps evil minds considering such acts, think twice before they fall victims to their lowest bestial nature. Your recent headline was ‘town united against grooming’.
Our question is – is there an insinuation of suspicion that the town may not be united against grooming? What’s becoming very obvious is how ridiculously easy it is to demonise a community. We’d like to ask the EDL that if they were serious about their concerns for the grooming victims, why did they not go protesting to Derby in May, where eight men were convicted of grooming girls between the ages of 13and 15 years – seven being white males? Is it because the crimes were perpetrated by the people of the wrong skin colour? We’d like to ask the BBC and the local and national papers why did they not report that one of the victims in the Rochdale case was a ten-year-old Pakistani girl? Why did anyone not report the case in Bradford where the victim was a 12-year-old Muslim girl? Is it because the wider public will stop believing the problem is endemic within There was no discussion anywhere on how the crimes of seven white males reflect on the British culture, or how middle-aged white men have to deal with the defects in their ethnic identity. Yet that’s precisely what happened after the conviction in May of the ‘Asian sex gang’ in Rochdale, which made the front page of every national newspaper. Though analysis of the case focused on how big a factor was race, religion and culture was, the unreported story is of how politicians and the media have created a new racial scapegoat. In fact, if anyone wants to study howr acism begins, and creeps into the consciousness of an entire nation, they need look no further.
At a Home Affairs Select Committee, deputy children’s commissioner Sue Berelowitz quoted a police officer who had told her that “there isn’t a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited”. It’s a crime repeated across Britain, by people of all colours and ethnic origins where the opportunity arises, some men will take advantage. The precise method, and whether it’s an individual or group crime, depends on the particular setting– be they priests, youth workers or networks on the web. If we truly care about the sexual exploitation of girls, we need to know that we must look at all communities, across the whole country, and not just at those that play to a smug sense of superiority about ourselves.