The BNP is a legal organisation As such in a constitutional state it enjoys the rights and obligations of any legal organisation. It has, among others, the right to have its data base of members subject to the same data protection laws as anyone else. It also has the obligation to take effective precautions to maintain the confidentiality of its data.
If, as some people say, the organisational and political structure of the BNP contravenes the law, then that is a matter for the courts to decide. The sight of a hot-headed Labour politician telling the BBC how to deal with a party that he thinks is illegal is not an edifying sight for those of us who believe in the rule of law and the separation of powers. It does not offer an image of constitutional order as a defence against the barbarians.
Then there’s the military. I have said consistently since spring of 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, there being no second Resolution of the UN Security Council to legitimise it. But Griffin says that:
at the Nuremberg trials, Nazi political and military leaders were charged with "waging aggressive war". He added: "Sir Richard and Sir Mike fall squarely into this bracket and they must not think that they will escape culpability for pursuing the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
One may well comment (fruitlessly in view of much entrenched British opinion) that the war in Afghanistan is indisputably legal. But apart from that one has to accept that he has a point. And what is happening is that the wind that was sown in 2003 by the British State (Prop., The Labour Party; Office boys, The Conservative Party) looks as if it could turn into a full-scale whirlwind. It is hitting the generals. Fairly? Well, they acted under orders – but they knew that the political situation was dodgy. Goldsmith had to provide a second, more robust, justification before the army chief of the time would accept his orders.
Is this latest leak of the BNP’s data base genuine? We can wait and see whether people who have been ‘taken out of the phone book’ will object to being associated with it, or whether some names and addresses are shown to be simply bogus. What is quite certain, however, is that the genius responsible for this latest leak is a first-class graduate of the Marinus van der Lubbe school of political action. Cui bono? The BNP of course, however it turns out, and no-one else.
And the army. Are “young squaddies” now voting for the BNP? Who can know? The army chiefs say that they abhor the BNP, and I have no reason to doubt them. The generals’ reaction seems genuine and honest, but how closely are they in touch with the squaddies’ voting patterns? And have those same squaddies not been inflamed by comments from those very generals to believe that the State is not supporting them properly in terms of housing and equipment? And if squaddies are inflamed against the State, is it so odd that they might support an anti-State party?
When the armed forces are controversial because of what they can and cannot do for the State within the limits of their equipment and professional ability, that is one thing. But when controversy arises because of what the State demands of them politically, that is another. A feeling, widely stated and believed among the British public but ignored by the Government, that what they are doing in Iraq is illegal, would be enough to sap the morale of any army. Between them, and from quite different standpoints, the BNP and the army seem to be making a right muck-up of things.
Will there be a coup in London? No of course not. It doesn’t work that way. This is the UK, not Spain. Who needs tanks on the streets when stern looks and strongly-worded telegrams will suffice in the corridors of power? In the Curragh mutiny in 1914 the army spoke and the Liberal government gave way. Six months later the country was at war and Ireland was kept on ice. In 1965 the army and RAF made very sure that they weren’t told to do anything about Ian Smith (the navy, admittedly, did pretend to blockade Beira – knowing full well that Rhodesia was getting its oil overland from South Africa). But now what? This time there is unrest in the ranks not refusal among the officers, who are with the State this time. The generals speak out for tolerance and for opposition to political interference in the military. That is all well and good – but the question is this: Just what is it that is going on in the army that makes it so necessary for them to speak out so clearly?
Recent Comments