Following the Guardian’s infiltration of the BNP, several people have been ‘outed’ as members of that Party.
One of them is the Sugar Plum Fairy in the English National Ballet’s production of The Nutcracker, known as Simone Clarke when she is at home. Her fellow dancers are reported to be confronting her, and members of the audience have been asked whether the ‘revelation’ has affected their appreciation of the performance.
But why should it? Are we now suggesting that BNP members should not have jobs in society? Do we expect them to be hidden in the shadows, sneaking out in the dead of night to forage for food while so-called respectable citizens are in bed? Shock, horror, they have lives like other people, sometimes fulfilling, sometimes not.
The story of the infiltration has a sense of the witchhunt about it which I do not like. What are we trying to achieve here? The agenda seems to run thus: ‘we don’t like the BNP’s views, so let’s smoke out their members and subject them to ridicule’.
As of this morning, being a member of the BNP is not a crime. Being a racist is also not a crime. The most effective way to challenge the ideology of the BNP is to encourage a society where open debate is possible. Perhaps there would be no need to ‘infiltrate’ the BNP if such an atmosphere of free speech existed in the first place. Then they would say what they wanted in the open, and we would challenge them.
As a tangential point, some people wish to keep their party affiliations private while at work. Even members of the sainted Labour Party may not wish their workmates to know about their political opinions. By acting in this manner, the Guardian has breached the privacy of these people. However, don’t expect the do-gooding types to lose much sleep over that; BNP members are apparently not to be treated as normal members of society.
The BNP’s views may be unpalatable to many, but that is no reason to infiltrate them as if they presented some grave and immediate danger from which the Guardian must save us. We all know that there are far more dangerous groups out there which threaten our very existence as a society. If any group is deserving of infiltration, surely it is these. But what’s the betting the Guardian won’t bother?
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Sadly this type of attitude is prevalent across society in many areas. How many times have you read an article - especially in publications of that ilk - where a black person is described as ‘articulate’? The subtext being what exactly, that a black person who is articulate needs to be congratulated as this is such an unusual circumstance? We are led to believe that all BNP members are knuckle-draggers - of course this is not true at all. And I would say that one of the reasons they are making the progress that they are is because the ballerinas and Savile Row suit-wearers amongst them are keeping schtum. Then one day soon they are going to make themselves known and take us all by surprise. When we are children we are often told ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’ then we grow up and forget. Sad that…..
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:04 pm
We “outed” all the Labour voters at work. Each was thoroughly humiliated. Interestingly, some even welcomed the deserved purging of their shamed souls.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Bel, you do know you’ve been tagged, don’t you? And you’re to inflict it on 7 others. Iain,Paul, Tom and Notsausssure have done theirs. Mr E. and Gracchi’s are coming. And I agree with your take in the post above.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Hi James, thank you for clearing that up. I wasn’t sure how many I was supposed to tag. Will do it this evening.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I seem to remember several instances over the last few years, although I cannot recall the specifics or provide links, of workers in the public sector being sacked for being BNP members. What I don’t recall is any public outcry or unfair dismissal proceedings.
Yet those members of society who in my opinion have done more harm than Al Qaeda and the BNP rolled into one, starry eyed PC liberals, often receive plaudits and public aclaim.
I’m not suggesting they should be purged, that would make me just as intolerent as they are, but I’m certainly getting frustrated that the inevitable swing of the pendulum back to reality based politics is taking far longer than I expected.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:11 pm
has a perceptive take on this, which I largely support, and quite a lively debate in the comments. The conclusion appears to be very similar to yours: encourage them into the open, and then challenge them.
Gracchi adds another potent weapon against them which hasn’t been mentioned here so far: the track record of incompetence displayed by those BNP candidates who have been voted into office.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Oh, I hate it when that happens. That should have started Gracchi has a perceptive take on this…. My apologies.
Bel, is there any possibility you might offer a comment preview facility for those of us who struggle?
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:25 am
Ian, I did think about a comment preview button, but I can’t find any on wordpress. Perhaps there is a plugin somewhere that I can download. I’m looking into it.
December 23rd, 2006 at 8:09 am
I bet there are blogs out there being set up with similar hidden objectives as we speak.
At tribunal it was determined that the BNP councillor in Bradford who was also a bus driver was lawfully sacked. I think that is a disgrace.
December 23rd, 2006 at 10:06 am
I agree it was a disgrace he was sacked, but, as I understand it, the problem was that he had only seven months’ service with the company so he couldn’t claim unfair dismissal. Instead, he tried to seek a remedy by using the Race Relations Act, which doesn’t impose a minimum length of service before a claim can be made. The tribunal and, later, the Court of Appeal said that, whatever he had been subject to, it wasn’t racial discrimination; as the Court of Appeal said (para 49), ‘Properly analysed Mr Redfearn’s complaint is of discrimination on political grounds, which falls outside the anti-discrimination laws’.
They also said, quite rightly (paras 10 — 11)
# If this was an unfair dismissal case, there would be substance in the critical comments on the circumstances of Mr Redfearn’s dismissal. It is not, in general, fair to dismiss a person from employment for engaging in political activities or for being a member of a political party propagating policies that are unacceptable to his employer, to his fellow employees, to trade union officials and members, or even to most of the population. We aspire to live in peace with one another in a politically free and tolerant society. Unpopular political opinions are lawful, even if they are intolerant of others and give offence to many. The right to stand for political office in a democratic election and to engage in political debate is entitled to respect, however unpalatable the person’s political convictions may be to many others.
# But this is not (I repeat not) an unfair dismissal case. Issues about whether Mr Redfearn’s politics are acceptable or about whether Serco’s treatment of him was fair and reasonable are not relevant to this appeal. The case that Mr Redfearn has chosen to bring against Serco is for race discrimination against him.
The tribunal and the Court of Appeal can’t fairly be criticised for applying the law as it is, whatever one may think of SERCO’s conduct (which would probably have been illegal had Mr Redfearn been there rather longer).
The question is, I think, do we want a law against political discrimination in the workplace?
December 23rd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
First, let me declare an interest - I am a former member of the National Front (I voted to disband it in 1989). I am also something of a Free Speech absolutist. I hate bullies of any political stripe and have stood-up for Communists, Muslim activists and others who are persecuted on account of their political opinions - not just members of the BNP.
I am now a member of Third Way (www.thirdway.org) and also serve on the National Executive of the Solidarity Trade Union.
I read the Guardian article with disgust. The only point in naming individuals and giving details of their workplaces is to encourage sad individuals to persecute them. It’s a form of psychological warfare aimed at discouraging people from supporting non-establishment parties: “Look at what might happen to you if you support them”. It’s a New McCarthyism.
Northern Ireland has legislation against political discrimination in the workplace and the answer from my Union to one of your respondents is clear: yes we need it hear.
Till we get it, however, I will press my Union to support any of our members who are discriminated against on any grounds (including political).
Progressive individuals (alongside those with simple common sense) will leave the Ballet dancer alone and even offer support. Many people have faced discrimination on grounds of sexuality, race, disabiltiy or religion. We need to look on this as human beings and feel for each other rather than have our emotions manipulated and be played one against another by a cynical establishment. It’s a message I would also give to the BNP btw.
December 23rd, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Humiliating people in their workplace is not a good way to influence political debate. Likely these views will just go underground and resurface in angry and unproductive ways.
December 24th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Hmm. I don’t know how it works in NI, but I can think of several commercial organisations on the Mainland who might well want to discriminate on political grounds. If, for example, The Daily Telegraph were to hire an active member of the Labour Party as their editor or chief leader writer, that would be a surprising appointment, to say the least, no matter what his other qualifications.
It would depend on how the law were drafted, but unless it included provision for discrimination on the grounds of the fact of political activity — that is, it stopped you from having a provision forbidding active membership of any political party — many employers would just ban all political activities whatsoever simply to avoid the danger of litigation.
I’m not in favour of political discrimination in general, but I can see all manner of problems for businesses with employees who felt themselves aggrieved for whatever reason if there were a law on such matters and I just wonder if, given the protections people already enjoy if they’ve been with their employer long enough to qualify, we actually need one.
It’s one of those cases where the remedy might well be worse than the ill. I don’t know.
December 24th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Well, of course, it’s sad that I see the need for a law in the first place. It’s a shame that people can’t just tolerate views they find objectionable (I do my best!).
I have seen it suggested that Simone should be down-graded in the next production on account of her political views. Nothing to do with ability! What kind of society are we sleep-walking into?
December 24th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
I found Tim Footman’s comment in the Guardian quite outrageous - “Should we offer Ms Clarke a chance to explain herself?”. It’s perfectly acceptable for New Labour supporters to hound people out of house and home for holding different political opinions to theirs because, after all, socialists do it “for the right reasons”.
The fact is high culture has always been attracted to political ideologies that support high culture.
December 24th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
The only thing that has been exposed has been the mass medias campaign to perpetuate the lie that to support BNP policies you must be smelly and poor.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Other posters might be amused to read the biography of the journalist himself on the Guardian website. For someone so critical of secrecy he has remarkably little to say about himself. Is it even a real name?
I shall be emailing the employers listed to tell them that they should not discriminate against individuals on political grounds without justification.
December 27th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
I’m late over here so apologise for that. I don’t think anyone should be sacked for having a job and being a member of the BNP unless it effects the way that they operate in their job- say a policeman who refused to investigate a crime committed against a black man or a shop seller who refused to sell to an Indian. Apart from that very limited area, I don’t think that a member of the BNP ought to be sacked. People should be assessed for a job solely on their ability to perform in such a role. Having said that I have no problem in telling a member that I find their beliefs to be wrong and if implemented they would bring about a disaster and would destroy society in this country. I think that their misperception of reality should be exposed and I think there are jobs in which misperceptions of reality matter. Where perceptions of reality don’t matter ie in a job like ballet dancing or indeed in a job like being a surgeon and making sure that they like everyone else treat everyone equally in discharging the duties of their job, then I don’t think they should be victimised for their political beliefs however stupid. Rather long response sorry- interesting debate!
December 29th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
I was outed at work for being a supporter of the English Cricket Team. The other supporter kept quiet and was not subject to abject derision as I was. I think I just about dealt with it. It did however give me an insight into what it would be like if my issues were more important and more objectionable. Being a POM during the Ashes is pretty objectionable to most Australians in a good natured way.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Gracchi says, Apart from that very limited area, I don’t think that a member of the BNP ought to be sacked. People should be assessed for a job solely on their ability to perform in such a role. This is where I have a problem, since I can easily think of several jobs where the fact of someone’s membership of a controversial political party would hamper their ability to perform in their role.
F’example, a chap might be a perfectly good bank manager and I might have every confidence that he’ll perform his duties completely professionally, whatever his politics. However, if I want to appoint a manager for my new branch in an area of Bradford where there are a lot people of Pakistani descent, and I want my manager to go out and drum up new business for my bank, would I not be justified in taking into account the fact he’s recently stood as the BNP candidate in the local elections when I’m deciding whether or not to appoint him?
I’ve got my shareholders to worry about, remember.
December 31st, 2006 at 1:38 pm
How about allowing employers to discriminate in whatever way they like? Sorry, is that too radical?
Please, no responses of the kind “get used to it”, “the debate has moved on”, etc.
December 31st, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Not Saussure December 29th, 2006 at 10:51 pm makes an interesting point. Would he also apply this to an Asian Bank Manager in an area with a high BNP vote? Might he encounter sales resistance? If so should he lose out on promotion or be moved? Perhaps some values are more important than pure commerce?
January 1st, 2007 at 12:56 am
When we vote there are booths which protect us from intimidation by giving us privacy. That is democracy on the ground, hands on democracy, something The Guardian doesn’t respect.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Regardless of her position within the ENB, Simone Clarke clearly has no place being a member of the BNP. The Chairman of the BNP Nick Griffin has previously written, “Do I regard someone who is married to or living with a partner of another race as a suitable member or candidate for the BNP? No, because by their choice they have clearly shown that they do not share our most fundamental values.”
Either the BNP must expel Clarke or continue down the slippery slope of compromise for the sake of a few more council seats. The BNP should be a white party for white people, not a mixed race party for race mixers. Where will it end?
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
The short answer to Patrick Harrington’s question about the Asian Bank Manager is that it would be illegal for me for take employment decisions about him on the grounds of how people might react to his ethnicity, so the question doesn’t arise. What we’re discussing is whether it should similarly be illegal to take someone’s political views, or other’s reaction to them, into account.
In principle, I think it’s far more reasonable to discriminate on the grounds of someone’s political views than on the grounds of his ethnicity, partly because his political views tell you far more about him as a person than does his background — if someone voluntarily joins a crackpot political party, it’s not unreasonable, after all, for me to conclude he’s a bit of a crackpot himself and to take this into account when I’m deciding whether or not to give him the job. It’s also far more reasonable to dislike someone because — for example — he’s a vociferous supporter of the Provisional IRA than it is to dislike him being a Catholic or an Irishman.
In practice, and if it weren’t for the Race Relations Act, I’d certainly discuss the matter with the Asian Bank Manager; I suspect I’d ultimately have to be guided by my assessment of how much business I’d actually lose as a result of appointing him and also with how much I thought I’d lose nationally as a result of hostile press coverage if he wanted the job and the only reason for turning him down was to placate bigots.
January 7th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Not Saussure of January 2nd, 2007 makes good points in response to my earlier mail. Certainly political views do tell you something about a person. Our interpretation of this is, however subjective. My view of a member of Sinn Fein or the Conservative Party might well be different from someone elses. One thing I would get from someone being in a politcal party is that they at least cared about what was happening in society and had the balls to say something about it! I would probably have a more positive view of them! Should people be able to exercise their personal prejudices to exclude someone from employment or deny them promotion on political grounds or indeed favour them (as I might)?
If on political grounds why not also on religious? If someone is a Muslim fundamentalist or Happy Clappy crank should we be able to deny them jobs or promotion?
I think that if we are to avoid the fracturing of our society we have to avoid discriminating against political minorities. As has been pointed out market decisions may lead us elsewhere.
March 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
[...] highest: yes, the BNP again. My first article on the ballerina, in which I condemned the Guardian for ‘outing’ her, and questioned [...]
January 13th, 2008 at 7:42 am
The Third Waydomain mentioned above has moved.