As an American lawyer it astounds me that the EHRC would have any jurisdiction to enjoin the BNP based on any
positions stated in its political charter other than treasonous or criminal declarations of policy. I am not
familiar enough with British law but such action in the US would violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution,
specifically pertaining to freedom of speech and political association. There is a long line of decisional
law beginning with the 1940’s relating to government attempts to enjoin or proscribe the “politics” rather
than the conduct of a political organization. All such attempts were ruled unconstitutional in part because
they were considered to infringe of the rights of association of each individual member of the party, thereby
requiring proof that each member held the identical positions of the party on a particular policy matter
(for example the US Communist Party’s declaration for the violent overthrow of the US government).
The action of a branch of government using “discrimination laws” to force a change (or compliance) in the
political positions of a party would be considered a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation against Public
Participation) and an attempt to invoke “prior restraint” of free speech. Is the EHRC now going to sue the
Communist Party based on its principle of “class antagonism” because its position predominates in favour of
the working class and thereby discriminates against persons with property and owners of land?
Such lawsuits constitute the grossest imposition of prior restraint (in this instance forcing a political
organization to mollify, change or amend its political principles to positions acceptable to the
government) and a blatant violation of constitutional free speech and association. What would the point of
allowing an oppositional political party if its statement of principles has to be identical to those of the
ruling party or parties?
If you need help from an American lawyer (for what my help would be worth) I would be happy to oblige.
Good luck BNP!