BNP dismisses legal action threat

The British National Party has dismissed threats of legal action over its membership policies by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The commission said it had written to the party over possible breaches of the law in the BNP's constitution, membership rules and recruitment.

It asked the BNP to pledge to comply with the Race Relations Act by 20 July or face a potential legal injunction.

But BNP leader Nick Griffin said the party's rules were "entirely legal".

Mr Griffin - who was elected as an MEP for the North West on 4 June - said the BNP was an exempted organisation under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Race Relations Act.

He said this meant "ethnic groups who need special protection such as the English in their own country, who are now second class citizens" were "entitled to discriminate on that basis and not on the grounds of colour".

He added: "We are not discriminating on grounds of colour."

On 4 June, the BNP won their first two MEPs in the European Parliament elections.

'Deliberate omission'

In a statement, the commission said the BNP's constitution and membership criteria appeared to discriminate on the grounds of race and colour, in breach of the Race Relations Act.

The party's rules appeared to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regarded as particular "ethnic groups", the commission added.

It also said the party's website asked job applicants to supply a membership number, which appeared to be in breach of legislation banning the "refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation".

The statement added: "The commission is therefore concerned that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally."

John Wadham, the commission's legal director, insisted it had a duty to take action against possible breaches of anti-discrimination laws.

He said: "The legal advice we have received indicates that the British National Party's constitution and membership criteria, employment practices and provision of services to constituents and the public may breach discrimination laws which all political parties are legally obliged to uphold."

The commission said it had received around 50 recent calls from members of the public about the membership policy of the BNP, although it is understood it was already investigating the party.

Teachers

The BNP's Deputy press officer John Walker said the party would not be making a formal response to the commission at this stage as it wanted to "wait until the Equalities Bill has gone through".

"We are not going to respond to threats like this. We will look at it, but it is an entirely politically-motivated attack," he told BBC News.

The Equalities Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, is expected to include a move to outlaw the BNP's membership policy, which is limited to various groups it defines as "indigenous Caucasian".

Mr Walker said the BNP would be prepared to change its membership rules "to remain within the law".

But he added: "I don't think we should be bullied by outside forces. They are asking us to change our whole political ideology."

On Monday, the Department for Children, Schools and Families said it was considering banning teachers in England from joining the BNP.

In its constitution, the BNP says it exists to represent the "collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain". continues here

Should the BNP give in to this political tyranny, concerning its admittance policy by the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

Health and safety axe on 800-year-old right to collect firewood

For the past 12 years, retired builder Mike Kamp has exercised his age-old right to collect firewood from the forest near his home. 

But the health and safety axe has finally come down on an 800-year-old tradition which dates back to the Magna Carta. 

Forestry chiefs say they have been forced to overrule the charter due to the 'increasing constraints' of modern legislation. 

The Magna Carta of 1215 included a Forest Charter which recognised the rights of commoners to get subsistence from common land. They were granted 'estovers' - dead wood - for fuel, to repair their homes, fix tools or make charcoal. 

Mr Kamp, 59, uses a wood-burning stove at his cottage near Betwys-y-Coed, North Wales, and enjoys walking through nearby Gwydir Forest. But now he has been told by Forestry Commission Wales that he can no longer buy a licence to forage. 

Mr Kamp said: 'They are claiming there are health and safety issues. But people have walked through the woods collecting firewood for hundreds and hundreds of years without too many safety problems.' continues here

Britain's freedoms under threat from 'Big Brother security state', warns Director of Public Prosecutions

The chief prosecutor has warned the surveillance society is threatening to 'break the back of freedom'. 

Sir Ken Macdonald, Director of Public Prosecutions, said the state was poised to take powers to keep information on everyone and 'we might end up living with something we can't bear.' 

His message - delivered ten days before he steps down as head of the Crown Prosecution Service - was a parting shot at ministers who aim to make every phone call, email, test message and internet visit available to police and security services. 

Sir Ken said: 'We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom's back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security state.' 

The warning comes amid growing public concern over state snooping. 

Some 4.4million people - many of them non-criminals - are on a DNA database, CCTV cameras routinely film pedestrians and motorists and the Government continues to plan an ID card system. 

Last week Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was accused of planning surveillance on a Big Brother scale when she announced moves to give police and security services access to all private electronic communications. 

Sir Ken attacked the spread of surveillance in a CPS lecture. He said: 'Let me in my final public speech as DPP repeat my call for levelheadedness and for legislative restraint in an age of dangerous movements.' 

While technology had brought immeasurable benefits, Sir Ken added, it 'also gives the state enormous powers of access to knowledge and information about each one of us and the ability to collect and store it at will. Every second of every day in everything we do.' 

The DPP said: 'Of course modern technology is of critical importance to the struggle against serious crime. Used wisely, it can protect us. 

'But we need to understand that decisions taken in the next few months and years about how the state may use these powers, and to what extent, are likely to be irreversible.  

Sir Ken said the best way to face down terrorist threats was to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law. 

His period as DPP had seen a relentless struggle against terrorism and a conviction rate 'unmatched in the fair trial world.' It had been done 'with full respect for our historical norms and our liberal constitution'. 

He added: 'It is difficult to see who will maintain a cool head if governments do not. Or who will protect our constitution if governments unwittingly disarm it.' 

Tories praised the speech. Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'Sir Ken has been at the forefront of our counterterrorism effort for several years, so he knows the security challenges we face. 

'This Government's approach has all too often proved cavalier - unjustified powers, sprawling databases and excessive use of surveillance powers risk undermining both our security and our way of life.' 

The Home Office said last night: 'The Government agrees with the DPP that technology and communications data is critically important in tackling all forms of serious crime as well as in the fight against terrorism. 

'The Government also agrees that care is needed to agree what safeguards are needed, in addition to the many we have in place already, to provide a solid legal framework which protects civil liberties. continues here

Government faces fight from within for spy database

A Home Office revolt is stalling a plan to store our e-mails and calls but a more sinister one may take its place 

Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, faces a revolt from her senior officials over plans to build a central database holding information on every telephone call, e-mail and internet visit made in the UK. 

A “significant body of Home Office officials dealing with serious and organised crime” are privately lobbying against the plans, a leaked memo has revealed. 

They believe the proposals are “impractical, disproportionate, politically unattractive and possibly unlawful from a human rights perspective”, the memo says. 

Their stance puts them at loggerheads with the spy-masters at GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre in Cheltenham, who have been driving through the plans.  

The Home Office rebels appear to have forced Smith to stall plans to announce a bill in the Queen’s speech authorising the database. She has instead ordered her officials to review the proposals. 

This weekend a top law enforcement body further dented the government’s case for the database. Jack Wraith, of the data communications group of the Association of Chief Police Officers, described the plans as “mission creep”. He said there was an “inherent fear” of the data falling into the wrong hands. 

“If someone’s got enough personal data on you and they don’t afford it the right protection and that data falls into the wrong hands, then it becomes a threat to you,” he said. 

Smith is already studying less explosive but equally effective alternatives. One option involves a system based on sending automated requests to databases already held by telephone and internet firms. 

Privacy campaigners believe the proposals form part of a “pentagon” of five huge databases, all linked together in real time to create the ultimate surveillance society. 

This would include compulsory registration of all Britain’s 72m mobile phones, more than 40m of which are prepaid. Terrorists and criminals prefer to hide behind the anonymity of prepaid phones, so a communications database needs to include accurate details of prepaid subscriber details. 

The Home Office yesterday declined to comment on the plans. But the office of Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, said it expects this register to be included in the database proposed in the draft communications data bill. 

Vodafone is believed to be one of the mobile phone firms now drawing up plans for compulsory customer registration. Such a system, already used in Europe, would require a passport or ID to register a phone. 

Phones can be located to within a few yards using cell site analysis – which tracks mobile phone users as they move from one signalling area to the next. 

The system would then link with the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system of traffic cameras, which provides live coverage of motor-ways and main roads. It, in turn, is linked to the DVLA in Swansea which holds the records of all registered vehicles in the country. 

By monitoring a single telephone call it would be possible to identify exactly where its user was and the registration number of the car in which he or she was travelling. This car could then be found within seconds by the ANPR cameras and tracked along its journey. 

Simon Davies, of Privacy International, said: “If you can do this in real time, with all the databases being interoperable, you have absolute perfect surveillance.” 

The plans for a communications database are equally intrusive. At their heart is a massive extension in an existing network of black boxes plugged into the internet. They intercept data on the web and extract information to be routed into computers held by MI5 and GCHQ, if required. 

Little is known about the extent of the system, but sources say that last year GCHQ was given £1 billion to extend it. Total costs for the project are estimated to be as high as £12 billion. 

Advocates of the database say terrorists are stateless and highly mobile and their communications are hard to detect among the billions of pieces of data on the internet. Last year about 14% of all calls were made over the internet, prompting police to complain that they are losing the ability to track calls. 

Unlike telephone companies, which must keep data for billing, internet call firms such as Skype have no reason to keep the records. 

A European Union directive introduced after the London and Madrid terror attacks compels service providers to keep all telephone and e-mail data for two years.This requirement will be extended to cover websites in March. But it does not include calls via the internet. Anyway, call and e-mail data is held separately in hundreds of company databases. continues here

New law to allow police to collect DNA in secret from teacups

MI5 and the police may be allowed to secretly collect genetic samples from items such as cigarette butts and teacups under new laws that could massively expand the national DNA database.

The powers would allow investigators to break in to suspects’ homes to collect DNA which could then be shared with foreign governments to check for links to crime and terrorism.

The new law, being discussed by Parliament, would mean the ‘stolen’ samples – thousands of which have already been taken by the security services – would be admissible in court and at a stroke hugely expand the Government’s controversial DNA database.

But human rights activists fear the new powers could lead to more innocent people having their DNA stored and, due to cross-contamination, being wrongly accused of crimes or terrorism.

The proposals, which are contained in the Counter-Terrorism Bill, were outlined last week by Security Minister Lord West in the wake of Labour’s unsuccessful attempt to introduce legislation to hold terror suspects for 42 days without charge.

The move comes despite growing fears about the rapid expansion of the national database, which stores the details of 4.2million people, including 573,639 who have not been convicted, cautioned or reprimanded for any offence.

Lord West said: ‘During surveillance, a DNA sample may be obtained without a warrant. A good example might be where a person discards a cigarette or a drinks container. It can be collected covertly and a sample taken.

‘Or, should a covert human intelligence source be used, the person under surveillance could visit the source’s house and a sample could be taken from a teacup.

‘There is a real need to share this data internationally, especially where terrorism is concerned.’

But opponents say taking DNA samples without their being cross-contaminated is difficult, even for trained specialists.

Last night Dr Helen Wallace of watchdog group Genewatch said: ‘This kind of DNA collection leads to a real danger of cross-contamination or genetic samples being taken from a person who may prove to be innocent.’ continues here

Resounding defeat in the House of Lords leaves Brown's 42-day terror detention plans in tatters

Gordon Brown last night dumped plans to extend the controversial detention of terror suspects to 42 days after a humiliating defeat by peers. 

In a major victory for civil liberty campaigners, the Lords rejected the proposals by a massive majority of 191. 

After the vote in the Upper House, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith delivered an emergency statement to the Commons saying the plans would be removed from the Government's Counter-Terrorism Bill.



She told MPs the highly-contentious proposals would live on in the form of 'standby' bill.

In a blistering attack, she told MPs: 'There is no greater liberty than the liberty of individuals not to be blown up on British streets or in British skies.

'I don't believe that it is enough to cross our fingers and hope for the best.'

Pointing at the Tories, she added: 'Some may take the security of Britain lightly. I don't.'

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said he 'profoundly objected' to her accusations that the Tory party was soft on terror.

He added that the new Bill, which was last night drafted at short notice following the Lords defeat, was 'the most bizarre thing I have ever read.'

A powerful coalition of Labour peers had joined forces with Opposition peers to vote down the proposals by 309 votes to 118.

The House of Commons had only narrowly passed the proposals by a majority of just nine in June.

Mr Brown had insisted a 42-day detention period - an extension from the current 28 days - was vital to deal with more complex plots. continues here

The limits of free speech

A fractional loss of liberty is a small price to pay compared to what can follow if the far right is shielded all the way into power

The recent electoral success of the far-right parties in Austria and the detention of the alleged Holocaust denier Gerald Töben in Britain together raise some awkward questions. How should liberal, democratic societies deal with those who espouse antisemitism and racism, who deny the systematic mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis, and who pour vitriol on Muslims and gay people?

Despite decades of "Holocaust education" and the building of Holocaust memorials, 29% of Austrian voters cast their ballot for the heirs and admirers of National Socialism. Although the Austrian government is a member of an intergovernmental taskforce dedicated to promoting memory of the Holocaust and its grim lessons worldwide, at home it cannot even convince its own population to stay away from the suit-wearing inheritors of Hitler's toxic ideology.

And notwithstanding the metastasisation of antisemitism on the web and state promotion of Holocaust denial, most openly and notoriously by Iran, there are many people in this country who denounce the process that will enable Germany to extradite and prosecute Töben. They argue that Britain has a reputation for freedom of speech and has long given asylum to those persecuted for their views. Britain, therefore, should be a haven for such as him even though his utterances are despicable.

Something is going wrong here. First, "Holocaust education" is bouncing off the far right. Although its advocates claimed that it would help to blunt racism in general and encourage acceptance of difference, it seems that to the target audience not all difference is the same. It has become common for extreme rightwingers to malign Islam or Gypsies, while at the same time averring philo-semitism. The new mayor of Rome is a case in point.

Second, liberal society's abhorrence of neo-Nazi ideology commingles with a frisson of pleasure, not to say envy, at their naughtiness, taboo-breaking, and defiance of conventional wisdom. At one extreme the defenders of what was once unacceptable come from the swollen ranks of those attracted to "counterknowledge", the internet bred and fed millions who believe anything generated by the "establishment" must be a half truth or a lie.

What links these two phenomena is the insidious claim that there is a "Holocaust industry" and that everything from historical research to raising "Holocaust awareness" is a ramp to benefit Jewish interests and Israel.

Then there are those who deplore Islamophobia, antisemitism, racism and homophobia who simultaneously defend the right of creative figures, and logically anyone else, to cause offence. It would be nice to call this a "principled" stand but it is precisely the lack of any aesthetic principle by which creativity can be judged that has reduced the benchmark of appreciation to breaking taboos and upsetting people.

These attitudes create a penumbra in which Töben and his ilk can operate with impunity. Or not. Because the German authorities see things differently and now have the legal mechanisms to act even if a person alleged to have broken their laws is on UK territory. Yet his case has triggered alarm calls here from those who argue that democracy and tolerance are robust enough not to need laws for their defence. But how would it look if the far right in the UK started taking 5 or 10 or 20% of the vote in local and national elections? If they took power at some level?

In countries with a memory of how fragile democracy can be, the fractional loss of liberty entailed in penalising the expression of neo-Nazi views or Holocaust denial seems a small price to pay compared to what can follow if the far right is shielded all the way into power. By contrast we in Britain tend to take the robustness of our democracy for granted. We forget that for much of the last century, democracy was a rare and vulnerable species of political culture, easily rendered extinct. The plight of democracy in most post-communist countries ought to be a reminder that not so much has changed in that respect.

With a global recession on the horizon, possibly bringing with it mass unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and cuts in government budgets for welfare, who would like to bank on democracy staying in robust good health? In a few years time, the extradition of Töben might look like a smart move if it sends a message to the far right in Austria, not to mention our own breed, that continues here

Above David Cesarani, he's not biased at all is he?