Interview with Student Direct
THIS is an interview that Andrew Brons conducted with the student newspaper Student Direct in 2010.
What is your take on this week's change to the whites-only rule employed by the BNP?
"We did not have a 'whites only' clause. We had an 'indigenous population only' clause. This was almost certainly legal under existing law but would not be legal under the Governmentís Equality Bill. I believe that all organisations should have the freedom to decide freely on their membership. This is the essence of the right of freedom of association. That right has been recognised in the case of feminist organisations that do not admit men and the state-funded Association of Black Police Officers that does not admit white officers.
The change to our Constitution was in response to a potentially very expensive civil legal action by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, which was ostensibly pursued to safeguard the right of ethnic minorities to join a party that they did not wish to join! The real (and admitted) reasons for the legal action were:
1. to try to create division in our ranks;
2. to cause us to spend money and valuable time contesting the action;
3. to help small Nationalist parties that have no chance of electoral success to poach our members. It is interesting that an unholy tacit alliance has been formed between the National Front and the EHRC, under which the EHRC agrees not to take action against the NF and that organisation agrees to do as much damage to the BNP as it can. Fortunately, its impact has been minimal."
What has the feedback been from your constituents?
"The response to the changes from our constituents has been minimal. They are interested in our policies and not in the internal machinery of our Party."
Nick Griffin described the body which forced the change as a fundamental outrage, but do you think it's a change which would have come eventually anyway?
"Nick Griffin did not describe the Equality and Human Rights Commission as a fundamental outrage. He described the use of a state-funded body to harass an opposition political party, at the behest of the Government to be an outrage.
I do not know whether or not the change would have occurred anyway. It could certainly be argued that the indigenous population clause was not really necessary because there was no desire on the part of ethnic minorities to join."
Do you agree that, with the change, the BNP can't be called racist anymore?
"I do not use the Trotskyist word 'racist', which was coined to denigrate British and other people of European descent. Whilst there have been attempts to provide scholastic definitions of the word, it is widely understood to mean 'hating people of other races'. We do not hate anybody on account of his race and we have never hated anybody on account of his race. Our opponents will continue to refer to us in insulting language because they are incapable of reasoned argument against us and use insults as a substitute for argument."
Do you think that, had the rule remained in place, it would have been possible for you to represent all your constituents in Yorkshire and Humber?
"I have made it quite clear from the outset that I shall represent all of my constituents, regardless of their personal politics or their ancestry or background. However, there are two distinct forms of representation: representation of political views; and redress of individual problems or grievances. No MEP or MP can represent the political policies of all constituents. MEPs and MPs have a duty to represent the political policies on which they were represented. However, an MEP or MP must represent all constituents on personal problems or grievances."
Do you anticipate attracting more, non-white members to your party now?
"I do not anticipate that many members of ethnic minorities will seek to join the BNP Some are in favour of our policies and will wish to do so but I suspect that they will be few in number. Some were already in touch with us and have already indicated that they will join. Those who seek to join on behalf of hostile organisations or who state that they are seeking membership to cause disruption or damage to the Party (see the remarks of Simon Woolley) will be rejected, not because of their race but because of their hostility to the Party."
How do you perceive race relations in the north: good or bad? What, given the feedback you get from your constituents, is the predominant mood?
"How do I perceive race relations in the North of England? I do not believe that there is any hostility to immigrants, individually or collectively and I am glad of that. However, there is opposition to the phenomenon of immigration and to the presence of such a large number of immigrants. The vast majority of people are sophisticated enough to understand that the blame for immigration lies with the Government and previous governments and not with immigrants who have simply taken an opportunity proffered to them."
Do you feel whites who may feel disenfranchised feel with the current government? What sort of complaints do they have?
"British people do feel that they have ignored by the so-called main political parties, not just on immigration but also on the European Union, on economic policy (particularly the embracing of the Global Economy), on law and order and last but not least on the aggressive wars being waged against Muslim states. The BNP is completely opposed to such wars. They result in the deaths of our first rate troops, the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and (in the near future) in Iran too. They also help to radicalise Muslims at home and abroad."
With the terror arrests in the north over the last year, do you think the government is doing all it can to combat terrorism? Especially in light of subsequent releases of suspects.
"The Government and previous governments are the main causes of terrorism. They invited large numbers of Muslims to our town and cities. They were never capable of being assimilated into the general population. However, successive governments have helped to radicalise them by adopting a partisan stance on the Middle East (we believe in taking a completely neutral stance) and waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both parties are now looking forward with undisguised glee at a war against Iran.
The use of so-called 'clean skins' necessitates keeping a vigilant watch on the communities from which terrorists come - the innocent as well as the guilty. However, I am utterly opposed to any ill treatment of suspects or connivance by the authorities with their ill treatment by other countries (extraordinary rendition)."
Given that some of those arrests took place in Bolton, where race must remain a delicate issue, do you think it serves any useful purpose within that area for them to cancel BNP debates? Or do you think such things should be tackled head on, resolved only through dialogue? Can you tell me what your take is on this decision, and what feedback you have received?
"I am opposed to all bans on proper debate. I would be equally opposed to the banning of radical Muslims, as long as they do not incite violence. The bans on the rights of the BNP are orchestrated by the Labour Party because they have no answer to our policies."
